Patriot Action
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
*Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
.
  • Search
  • Help
Hello There, Guest! Login Register
Login
Username:
Password:
Lost Password?
 
.
Join the discussions here at Patriot Action --->> New Registrations
Patriot Action › Earth Arena › Climate Politics and Media v
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

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

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Threaded Mode
Goldman Sachs’ Jeff Currie: ‘$3.8 Trillion of Investment in Renewables Moved Fossil F
Sunsettommy Offline
Patriot Master
*******
Administrators
Posts: 5,460
Threads: 2,180
Thanks Received: 2,914 in 1,538 posts
Thanks Given: 713
Joined: Aug 2022
Reputation: 3,047
#1
10-25-22, 09:16 PM
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.
“A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper

“The problem with following the science is that the science follows the money.” - CD in Wisconsin

"You have two parts of brain, 'left' and 'right'. In the left side, there's nothing right. In the right side, there's nothing left." -- Rutabaga

Terms of Service (Rules)

Moderation Guidelines

Announcements

  •
Find
Reply
toobfreak
Unregistered
 
#2
10-26-22, 01:21 PM
(10-25-22, 09:16 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: 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!   Undecided

  •
Reply
Sunsettommy Offline
Patriot Master
*******
Administrators
Posts: 5,460
Threads: 2,180
Thanks Received: 2,914 in 1,538 posts
Thanks Given: 713
Joined: Aug 2022
Reputation: 3,047
#3
10-26-22, 01:28 PM
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.
“A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper

“The problem with following the science is that the science follows the money.” - CD in Wisconsin

"You have two parts of brain, 'left' and 'right'. In the left side, there's nothing right. In the right side, there's nothing left." -- Rutabaga

Terms of Service (Rules)

Moderation Guidelines

Announcements

  •
Find
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Bill McKibben: “Renewables are cheap, and everyone wants them, but there are big gaps Sunsettommy 1 1,297 12-28-22, 08:44 PM
Last Post: Billy_Bob

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
  • Forum Team
  • Contact Us
  • Patriot Action
  • Return to Top
  • Lite (Archive) Mode
  • Mark all forums read
  • RSS Syndication
Current time: 05-21-25, 05:36 AM Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 MyBB Group.