2 thoughts on “NYTimes: A Renewable Energy Boom”

  1. Why ‘exclude’ large hydro plants from the accounting?
    A logical consequence of the AGW premise is:
    higher temperatures > higher evaporation rates from the seas > higher humidity > heavier rainfall > more opportunity for hydroelectric generation.

  2. Well duh, this is a UN “report”.

    Oil, coal, & gas infrastructure are for the most part already in place.
    Of course there’s not as large of an investment being made.

    And note the duplicity of “10.3 percent of all electricity generated globally”.
    “Generated” does mean used and certainly not stored. A large percentage of that energy simply goes to waste after being “generated” because there is no viable storage technology. All indicators say there will no such storage technology for a long time.

    And then let’s talk about “renewable”.
    What is “renewable” about the construction of short lived solar panels, inefficient batteries, and other energy products made out of materials which are finite in supply and require huge amounts of energy from coal, gas, & oil in order to be mined, processed, transported, & manufactured?

    How stupid it all is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.