Goldman Sachs’ Jeff Currie: ‘$3.8 Trillion of Investment in Renewables Moved Fossil F

[Sunsettommy]

Climate Depot

Goldman Sachs’ Jeff Currie: ‘$3.8 Trillion of Investment in Renewables Moved Fossil Fuels from 82% to 81% of Overall Energy Consumption’ in 10 Years

By: Marc Morano

October 21, 2022 12:47 PM

Excerpt:

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."

LINK

=====

What a lousy return for the wasted dollars that doesn't do diddlysquat with climate change.

[toobfreak]

Climate Depot

Goldman Sachs’ Jeff Currie: ‘$3.8 Trillion of Investment in Renewables Moved Fossil Fuels from 82% to 81% of Overall Energy Consumption’ in 10 Years

By: Marc Morano

October 21, 2022 12:47 PM

Excerpt:

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."

LINK

=====

What a lousy return for the wasted dollars that doesn't do diddlysquat with climate change.

The bigger question is how is that 3.8 trillion calculated?  Is it calculated at today's dollar value or adjusted for inflation year by year?  If based on today's market, then all those dollars of past years were worth more, making the actual cost maybe closer to 5 trillion.

But hey---  only another 120 trillion dollars to go and we'll have renewables up to contributing about HALF of our total energy needs!  

[Sunsettommy]

It seems high to me, but the point is still viable since there is negligible change overall in energy production between "renewables and standard 24/7 power producers since more Coal, Nuclear, NG and other 24/7 power production producers are still being constructed.