Economist Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs (Global Head of Commodities Research in the Global Investment Research Division): “Here’s a stat for you, as of January of this year. At the end of last year, overall, fossil fuels represented 81 percent of overall energy consumption. Ten years ago, they were at 82. So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent, of the overall energy consumption. But you know, given the recent events and what’s happened with the loss of gas and replacing it with coal, that number is likely above 82.” … The net of it is clearly we haven’t made any progress.”
#
By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Transcript:
CNBC’s JOE KERNEN: “OPEC’s back in charge because we haven’t invested in alternatives. That’s all Europe did, was invest in new age alternatives.”
JEFF CURRIE (an economist and Global Head of Commodities Research in the Global Investment Research Division at Goldman Sachs.): “No, because we didn’t —“
KERNEN: “Are you saying natural gas and nuclear and coal are alternatives, or do you mean pie in the sky, wind —“ [crosstalk]
CURRIE: “Alternative to OPEC production —“
KERNEN: “Fossil fuel alternatives to —“ [crosstalk]
CURRIE: “— whether it’s gas, oil, solar, wind, you name it. But in fact —“
KERNEN: “Nuclear, coal, all — and of the above. It just sounded like you were saying — sounded like you were saying we haven’t transitioned quick enough to the green stuff, and that’s not what — what you were saying —“ [crosstalk]
CURRIE: “But — but — but let’s — but let’s look at how much did the greens investment give us? Here’s a stat for you, as of January of this year. At the end of last year, overall, fossil fuels represented 81 percent of overall energy consumption. Ten years ago, they were at 82. So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent, of the overall energy consumption. But you know, given the recent events and what’s happened with the loss of gas and replacing it with coal, that number is likely above 82. So when we think about what those renewables have added — because remember, you’re adding capacity, but the capacity utilization factor is quite low on them. And then you have Europe making the investment in there, but China making further investments. The net of it is clearly we haven’t made any progress. And I think the key point that I was saying is that why OPEC is in the driver’s seat, you know, at an unprecedented level is because, you know, we inclusively of everybody outside of OPEC have not adequately invested in overall energy production, infrastructure and the ability to supply and deliver it. And I don’t care — and by the way, the countries like Brazil, you know, was [indecipherable] about who’s going to be exposed to this because they raise interest rates really early in the cycle. They’re actually less exposed to what’s happening right now than let’s say Japan or Europe.”
#
Federal Labor Party of Australia has the same plan …
https://renewablesnow.com/news/australias-labor-party-has-82-renewables-goal-for-2030-764434/
There are not enough available minerals in the world to make EV batteries for even the next 10 years.
“$3.8 Trillion of Investment in Renewables Moved Fossil Fuels from 82% to 81% of Overall Energy Consumption’ in 10 Years”
It shows how powerful fear mongering propaganda is in creating false economies by virtue of political self righteous action. False economies damage economies and people pay for it in the long run. It also shows you how much people leverage false economy gravy trains and keep the propaganda flowing.
I wonder to what degree the long term impact of $3.8 investment with little economic impact will have or has had on inflation, (higher gas taxes in PA)? Make work keeps people employed and economies running but the outcome is lower productivity which is a major contributor to inflation. $3.8 trill and little productivity has to be inflationary.
The real disaster in the long run, is the clear total failure of renewables as an economically viable energy solution. The problem is not the energy inputs themselves, it’s that the highly politicized renewable markets put the cart before the horse…the horse being cheap energy storage. A knee jerk negative response to renewable energy inputs will inhibit the development of energy tech (cheap energy storage solutions) that could eventually make energy much less expensive for the consumer than it is now, via decentralized use of renewables in the long run.
Energy inputs should not be politicized either left or right. Either they make economic sense or they don’t. I would use solar, (with a great cheap battery) if it was cheaper than natural gas, gasoline and oil, who wouldn’t.
The very long term good news is there is plenty of cheap natural gas, coal and oil.
The bad news is the long term negative impact of 8-10 years of a massive climate change propaganda campaign on the thought process of the West and the destabilization of our political system.