Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels

[Correll]

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.
`

Being more expensive, is not being cost effective.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

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.

Cold Fusion From Italy Nearly Commercial Ready

An Italian Team has demonstrated and held a press conference on a cold fusion or catalyst reaction that returns 37.5 times the energy than used for operation.

newenergyandfuel.com

That was almost 10 years ago - commercial ready.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

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 an elusive beast.

The concept has been known for a long time but implementation has been difficult.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

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!

Researchers create a graphene circuit that makes limitless power

A team of researchers from the University of Arkansas has successfully developed a circuit that can capture the thermal motion of graphene and convert it into an electrical current. The physicists …

www-slashgear-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Not related to power production on a large baseload scale.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Cold Fusion From Italy Nearly Commercial Ready

An Italian Team has demonstrated and held a press conference on a cold fusion or catalyst reaction that returns 37.5 times the energy than used for operation.

newenergyandfuel.com

Thanks for the link.

Perhaps the greatest significance is the team has started the patent process and have licensee agreements completed in both the EU and USA. This seems to be fully real. Moreover, the expectations of the team are to have commercial designs due out within a year with device production for sale or use in 2 to 3 years.

10 year old article, still no commercial devices? Weird.

Almost like Rossi is a fraud, eh?

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.
`

A lot of mainstream scientists have been saying for sometime now, that to really heal the Earth, two-thirds of the planet must be returned to nature, so as long as the human population keeps growing, needing Earth's resources and not shrinking, the Earth isn't going to improve.
Add to this, our planet's 3rd and 2nd world nations, rely heavily on fossil fuels for their burgeoning populations who continue to deforest lands for cooking and heat, et cetera, and their nations leaders say they will continue with this until they reach a similar level to the United States.
As for the United States, we pollute far less than other nations and the Paris Accord actually does nothing globally, especially with regards to those 3rd and 2nd world nations.

 

[there4eyeM]

The insistence to needlessly reproduce leads inexorably to needless suffering.

 

[abu afak]

Now it's up to 92%.

`

 

[jc456]

So the same old stupid keeps coming

 

[elektra]

Now it's up to 92%.

`

Of course global investment in Solar and Wind is the largest investment in history. It is because green energy as a source of power is pitiful, weak, barely works.

Global investment in Green Energy is, according to the Democrats, to increase by 100,000%

Green Energy is that expensive, cause it does not work.

 

[Old Rocks]

So the same old stupid keeps coming

Then try posting something that reflects intelligence and surprise us all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course global investment in Solar and Wind is the largest investment in history. It is because green energy as a source of power is pitiful, weak, barely works.

Global investment in Green Energy is, according to the Democrats, to increase by 100,000%

Green Energy is that expensive, cause it does not work.

Levelized Cost of Energy+

Levelized Cost of Energy+

www.lazard.com

 

[elektra]

View attachment 582512

Levelized Cost of Energy+

Levelized Cost of Energy+

www.lazard.com

Yep. $100 trillion to start our spending on solar panels and wind mills

 

[abu afak]

Yep. $100 trillion to start our spending on solar panels and wind mills

As opposed 90 Trillion to rebuild Fossil plants?
Alot of the 'cost' will just be normal replacing old Fossil plants which don't have to be fed with Saudi Fuel for 30 years.

`

 

[bripat9643]

As opposed 90 Trillion to rebuild Fossil plants?
Alot of the 'cost' will just be normal replacing old Fossil plants which don't have to be fed with Saudi Fuel for 30 years.

`

Why do we have to rebuild fossil fuel plants, and who said the cost will be $90 trillion?

 

[abu afak]

Why do we have to rebuild fossil fuel plants, and who said the cost will be $90 trillion?

Because Fossil Fuel plants, like all plants, eventually need replacement?
Who said Renewables would 'cost' 100 Trillion?
I was just responding to his nonsense pitter patter with a relative number.

 

[bripat9643]

Because Fossil Fuel plants, like all plants, eventually need replacement?
Who said Renewables would 'cost' 100 Trillion?
I was just responding to his nonsense pitter patter with a relative number.

Yes they do, but that's already been figured into the equation. The global warming kooks are demanding an additional $90T for their green energy fantasies.

The green energy kooks are the ones who claim their schemes will cost $90 trillion.

 

[abu afak]

Yes they do, but that's already been figured into the equation. The global warming kooks are demanding an additional $90T for their green energy fantasies.

The green energy kooks are the ones who claim their schemes will cost $90 trillion.

No it has NOT been figured into the equation.
It's an old floater by anti-greens who just tell you the cost of an already needed new plant.
(I have a thread on this, "Solar is now the cheapest..")
"Solar is now ‘Cheapest Electricity in History’, confirms IEA
It was closed by the RW Bigot (FlaCalTeen) who runs this place.

`

 

[bripat9643]

No it has NOT been figured into the equation.
It's an old floater by anti-greens who just tell you the cost of an already needed new plant.
(I have a thread on this, "Solar is now the cheapest..")
`

If not, then why do they need $90 T? What is the additional money for? There is no cost to the taxpayers for a plant to replace an existing one. Have the taxpayers ever foot the bill for coal fired plants? The cost for that is included in your power bill.

 

[bripat9643]

And so will the cost of the Solar plants.
Again the 90 Tril was just a what if /parry number to 100 Tril
These are wild wide estimates
WTF are you doing putting them in stone for
Too dumb.
Gameover
so solly.
`

What is the $90 trillion for?