HomeClimate Change Bullshit$11 trillion Spent On “clean energy"

$11 trillion Spent On “clean energy”

Author

Date

Category

Massive Spending On Green Energy Has Garnered Meager Returns

WRITTEN BY ROBERT LYMAN

COP28, the 28th “Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change,” which just concluded in Dubai, had as one of its central themes the need to promote the energy transition by spending more on renewable energy.

But what have been the results of such spending up to now? [emphasis, links added]

 

The International Energy Agency, in its reports on energy financing, breaks down global energy investment into investment in fossil fuels, on the one hand, and in “clean energy” on the other.

In 2023, estimated investment in “clean energy” will be close to $2.2 trillion (in C$). That is an almost unimaginable amount of money, made only slightly less daunting when portrayed as $6 billion per day.

The $2.2 trillion consists of investment in renewable power (electricity generated by wind, solar, and biomass energy sources) of about $857 billion, energy grids ($430 billion), energy efficiency ($438 billion), electric vehicles and battery storage ($216 billion combined) and nuclear energy ($82 billion).

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) uses a different definition of renewable energy. It includes wind, solar, biomass, energy efficiency, “electrified transport,” “electrified heat,” energy storage, hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage, but excludes nuclear energy.

According to IRENA’s most recent report, investment in these “transition-related technologies” totaled $8.9 trillion over the years 2015-2022. Last year, expenditures were $1.7 trillion — a cool $4.7 billion per day.

The IEA and IRENA estimates differ because of their different definitions of what constitutes both “clean energy” and “renewable energy.”

But they both indicate that global expenditures on non-traditional energy production have been growing for decades and are very high indeed.

Still, other sources publish different estimates, but they all indicate that this type of investment, largely funded by government subsidies, has been going on since the 1980s and grew most in the period 2000-2011.

Both the IEA and IRENA report that over 90 percent of global expenditures on clean energy have been in China, the United States, Western Europe, and other OECD countries.

On the other hand, those 35 countries generate less than half of global GHG emissions. This means the world’s other 160 countries produce more than half of global GHG emissions but account for only 10 percent of clean energy investment.

What has been the result of these gargantuan expenditures? The effects of current investments in electrical energy infrastructure won’t be fully apparent for some time, but we should be able to see the effects of spending that has been rising for more than 20 years.

To find out, I consulted the authoritative Statistical Review of World Energy 2023, published by the Energy Institute, the successor to British Petroleum as the producer of the Statistical Review. It works closely with KPMG to produce the report.

The share of the world’s primary energy consumption produced by renewable energy has essentially doubled since 2015, from about 3.5 to seven percent of the world’s total.

Yet, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), which accounted for 85 percent of primary energy consumption in 2015, still accounted for 82 percent in 2022.

At that rate of reduction — three percentage points every seven years — we will not get to full decarbonization (i.e., zero use of fossil fuels) until well into the next century.

After rising steadily in the two decades up to 2019, both energy consumption and energy-related greenhouse gas emissions declined sharply — by about nine percent —during the pandemic. But they then rose again in 2021 and 2022.

In 2022, GHG emissions reached an all-time high of 34.4 billion tonnes. The regional shares of this total had changed, however.

In 2022, energy-related emissions in the OECD countries were seven percent below their 2015 level, while in the non-OECD countries, they were 12 percent higher than in 2015 — and almost double current OECD emissions, continuing what is now a long-standing trend.

In summary, since 2014 the world has spent about $11 trillion on “clean energy” or “the energy transition” yet global GHG emissions are higher than ever.

At that level of waste, they could have built a nuclear power station in most countries and still had change.

Previous article
Next article

7 COMMENTS

  1. How far down the track would nuclear power generation have been by now if the filthy Green movement and virtue signalling politicians for 50 years hadn’t put a stop to the financial viability of companies researching and improving nuclear power . My guess is it’d be 1000% safe and probably a quarter of the price it would be now to build such stations.
    The smelly weird looking outrageously dressed Green MPs in our own parliament are an indication of the typical fcukwits that have always been the green parties world wide , those morons and imbeciles are responsible for the cancellation of the very power source that would have probably saved the planet from the hair on fire threats they are making against us all now FFS.

    8

    0

  2. Recently I noticed some red lights in the distance flashing in the middle of the night.
    Took me a while to realise these lights are on the new wind turbines on the ranges close to the Napier /Taupo road.
    I can see them with binoculars now during the day and they are huge turbines that poke up out of that well known hilly skyline.
    Wind energy .Greatest con in history.

    6

    0

    • down here in gore theres monstrosities not far from town now, quite funny cuz many of the pro wind/renewable folk who were all for it got upset at the “visual pollution” as they thought being built in kaiwera they were outve sight outve mind…. yeah nah they overlook the town now, dumbarse greenies

      7

      0

      • Sooner or later the morons backing solar & wind generation are going to do their homework. They will find that the cost of the plant is dwarfed by the investment in infrastructure to get the power to the national grid.

        It’s paying dividends in the Wairarapa, in irony if not in kilowatts. Upmarket, snooty Greytown in the Lower Valley is about to be surrounded by solar farms for the sole reason that there’s a substation close by. The nimbys are parked up on the horns of a dilemma.

        Do they pretend to give a fuck about the planet or protect the inflated value of their overpriced properties.

        As Kermit said……..It ain’t easy being Green.

        5

        0

Recent posts

Recent comments

jack nohi on Have Your Say
howitis on Have Your Say
Sooty on Have Your Say
Curious on Have Your Say
Tauhei Notts on Have Your Say
Curious on Have Your Say
freethinker on Have Your Say

Pike is our weekly review of the most popular posts and comments seen on YSB in the past week.
Hamilton
overcast clouds
10.6 ° C
13 °
10.6 °
92 %
3kmh
85 %
Tue
12 °
Wed
15 °
Thu
11 °
Fri
14 °
Sat
13 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar
USD
1.6643
EUR
1.7933
AUD
1.0982
CAD
1.2163
GBP
2.0861
JPY
0.0107
CNY
0.2301
INR
0.0199