Solar power due to overtake oil production investment for first time, IEA says

[chuckChuck]

So AB5 when are we going to run out of enough CO2 in the atmosphere again? LOL

If renewables are so expensive and bad why is Alberta and the private sector building and planning to build so many of them?

[Guest]

You didn't read or comprehend my comment did you?

According to your article, we are investing more into solar which produces 0.75% of total global energy needs, as we are investing into fossil fuels which provide 81% of total global energy needs. I confirmed those numbers today, it is worse than I originally thought.

What is remarkable is how much money has already been invested into supposed clean energy alternatives, and how little we have to show for it. For the same investment, fossil fuels are returning 100 times more energy, according to the numbers you provided in the first post.

Yet you keep telling us renewables are the lower cost alternative. With an ROI 100 times less?

Why would you even post this article, when it shows just how terrible the economics are? Some times I wonder whose side you are really on?

It's like that time you posted the article claiming that wind and solar were going to create multiple times more jobs than fossil fuels. And you thought it was a good thing. More jobs means more wages, means the end product costs that much more. It isn't a difficult concept.

Whoops , chucky did it again , lol

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So AB5 when are we going to run out of enough CO2 in the atmosphere again? LOL

If renewables are so expensive and bad why is Alberta and the private sector building and planning to build so many of them?

Chuck you are deflecting again.

How do you explain investing as much money into solar, as fossil fuels, and having 100 times less energy to show for it?

[Guest]

Chuck you are deflecting again.

How do you explain investing as much money into solar, as fossil fuels, and having 100 times less energy to show for it?

It will improve
Renewables will get cheaper
And more efficient
Just about the same time as the cow jumps over the moon

[chuckChuck]

Read the article more closely.

"Around US$2.8-trillion is set to be invested in energy worldwide in 2023, of which more than US$1.7-trillion is expected to go to renewables, nuclear power, electric vehicles and efficiency improvements.

The rest, or around US$1-trillion, will go to oil, gas and coal, demand for the last of which will reach and all-time high or six times the level needed in 2030 to reach net zero by 2050.

Current fossil-fuel spending is significantly higher than what it should be to reach the goal of net zero by midcentury, the agency said.

In 2023, solar-power spending is due to hit more than US$1-billion a day or around US$380-billion on a yearly basis."

The $1.7 Trillion includes nuclear which many seem to support. Even though its the most expensive option.

10 years ago none of you would have thought Alberta would have stopped using coal for electricity by 2023. But that's about to happen.

So I don't put much credence in climate change deniers arm chair analysis. It usually is a lot of hot air mixed with excessive hyperbole and a lot of misinformation.

Even Smith and Moe are advocating net zero electricity by 2044 and 2050. Quite remarkable considering their continued ranting about Ottawa.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.aeso.ca/future-of-electricity/albertas-power-system-in-transition/

Alberta’s Power System in Transition

Alberta’s power system is undergoing the biggest transformation in its 100-plus year history. Coal-fired electricity generation, a key source of power in the province for more than a century, is on track to be eliminated as a fuel source for electricity by the end of 2023.

Offsetting the phase-out of coal are equally large increases in natural gas as a fuel source, along with renewable energy such as wind and solar. In fact, Alberta now leads all other provinces in growth in wind and solar energy.



Blessed with ample wind and solar resources, and supported by the province’s competitive electricity market, Alberta is attracting significant private investment in renewables generation and energy storage projects, estimated at more than $4 billion since 2019.

As shown in this chart, 12,600 MW of solar capacity, 9,100 MW of wind and 5,556 MW of energy storage are either under construction, have received approval by the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) or been announced by project proponents.

So A5 are you going to keep denying that renewables are going to have an important role in getting to net zero in Alberta. Look at the numbers including storage from the AESO. How wrong you are.

Gas, interties, storage,imports and a smart grid will provide stability and backups when needed. So there is no need to worry so much chicken littles. Run your farm and let the utilities and the AESO run the grid, cause you don't know what you are talking about.

[TOM4CWB]

CC… so in the winter…. When it is-40…When Canadians /Albertans …need energy to stop from freezing to death…. The electrical grid is dead and then what???

Forced Suicide…. Is normally called MURDER.

Blessings and Prayers for rain!

[chuckChuck]

CC… so in the winter…. When it is-40…When Canadians /Albertans …need energy to stop from freezing to death…. The electrical grid is dead and then what???

Forced Suicide…. Is normally called MURDER.

Blessings and Prayers for rain!

Forced suicide and murder if Alberta choose more renewables? LOL Tom you are losing it man.

You can keep the gas plants for backup Tom. Gas plants are very flexible. And maybe Nuclear along with imports will provide backup as well.

Do you really have so little faith in the corporate utilities and the AESO that they haven't thought of backup for intermittent renewables?

You run your farm and leave the utility management to the utilities who's job it is to figure this out.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Read the article more closely.

"Around US$2.8-trillion is set to be invested in energy worldwide in 2023, of which more than US$1.7-trillion is expected to go to renewables, nuclear power, electric vehicles and efficiency improvements.

The rest, or around US$1-trillion, will go to oil, gas and coal, demand for the last of which will reach and all-time high or six times the level needed in 2030 to reach net zero by 2050.

Current fossil-fuel spending is significantly higher than what it should be to reach the goal of net zero by midcentury, the agency said.

In 2023, solar-power spending is due to hit more than US$1-billion a day or around US$380-billion on a yearly basis."

The $1.7 Trillion includes nuclear which many seem to support. Even though its the most expensive option.

10 years ago none of you would have thought Alberta would have stopped using coal for electricity by 2023. But that's about to happen.

So I don't put much credence in climate change deniers arm chair analysis. It usually is a lot of hot air mixed with excessive hyperbole and a lot of misinformation.

Even Smith and Moe are advocating net zero electricity by 2044 and 2050. Quite remarkable considering their continued ranting about Ottawa.

Thank you for proving my point Chuck. That all you do is repeat a headline that you think supports your bias, without bothering to understand the issue at all, or in this case, without even reading the article to see that it actually contradicts the headline.
You repeated the headline that investment in solar will overtake investment in oil, over and over again. Yet the article does not make any such claim. In fact solar investment will be 38% as much as investment in fossil fuels according to the actual article. So instead of solar being 100 times more expensive per unit of energy produced, as your original headline claimed, it is only 40 times more expensive than fossil fuels.
Hamloc was making fun of the fact that you never read any articles by admitting he hadn't read it. Looks like you didn't read it either.
So, where is your faux outrage about spreading fake news, when you are the one spreading fake news?

[cropgrower]

Forced suicide and murder if Alberta choose more renewables? LOL Tom you are losing it man.

You can keep the gas plants for backup Tom. Gas plants are very flexible. And maybe Nuclear along with imports will provide backup as well.

Do you really have so little faith in the corporate utilities and the AESO that they haven't thought of backup for intermittent renewables?

You run your farm and leave the utility management to the utilities who's job it is to figure this out.

So the Gas plants would be turning on and off every time the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shineing ?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So the Gas plants would be turning on and off every time the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shineing ?

It's actually much worse than that. The efficient modern combined cycle gas generation doesn't work in that ramp up ramp down situation. So all of the peaker plants are simple cycle which are about half as efficient, therefore twice as much CO2 per unit of power produced. And they still can't ramp up and down from zero, so they are running at standby burning fuel regardless of what the Sun and wind are doing. There's a reason why CO2 emissions do not go down but more often go up when wind and solar are added. The very same reason why costs inevitably go up when wind and solar are added. Still waiting for Chuck to find an exception to this.

[cropgrower]

so what it boils down too is he dont have a clue what he is talking about