HomeNews‘$3.8 Trillion of Funding in Renewables Moved Fossil Fuels from 82% to...

‘$3.8 Trillion of Funding in Renewables Moved Fossil Fuels from 82% to 81% of General Power Consumption’ in 10 Years – Watts Up With That?

Date:


From Local weather Depot

Economist Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs (World Head of Commodities Analysis within the World Funding Analysis Division): “Right here’s a stat for you, as of January of this 12 months. On the finish of final 12 months, general, fossil fuels represented 81 p.c of general vitality consumption. Ten years in the past, they have been at 82. So although, all of that funding in renewables, you’re speaking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of funding in renewables moved fossil gasoline consumption from 82 to 81 p.c, of the general vitality consumption. However , given the current occasions and what’s occurred with the lack of gasoline and changing it with coal, that quantity is probably going above 82.” … The web of it’s clearly we haven’t made any progress.”

#

Actuality test: In 1908, fossil fuels accounted for 85% of U.S. vitality consumption. In 2015, kind of the identical

By: Marc Morano – Local weather Depot

Transcript: 

CNBC’s JOE KERNEN: “OPEC’s again in cost as a result of we haven’t invested in alternate options. That’s all Europe did, was put money into new age alternate options.”

JEFF CURRIE (an economist and World Head of Commodities Analysis within the World Funding Analysis Division at Goldman Sachs.): “No, as a result of we didn’t —“

KERNEN: “Are you saying pure gasoline and nuclear and coal are alternate options, or do you imply pie within the sky, wind —“ [crosstalk]

CURRIE: “Different to OPEC manufacturing —“

KERNEN: “Fossil gasoline alternate options to —“ [crosstalk]

CURRIE: “— whether or not it’s gasoline, oil, photo voltaic, wind, you identify it. However the truth is —“

KERNEN: “Nuclear, coal, all — and of the above. It simply sounded such as you have been saying — sounded such as you have been saying we haven’t transitioned fast sufficient to the inexperienced stuff, and that’s not what — what you have been saying —“ [crosstalk]

CURRIE: “However — however — however let’s — however let’s take a look at how a lot did the greens funding give us? Right here’s a stat for you, as of January of this 12 months. On the finish of final 12 months, general, fossil fuels represented 81 p.c of general vitality consumption. Ten years in the past, they have been at 82. So although, all of that funding in renewables, you’re speaking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of funding in renewables moved fossil gasoline consumption from 82 to 81 p.c, of the general vitality consumption. However , given the current occasions and what’s occurred with the lack of gasoline and changing it with coal, that quantity is probably going above 82. So once we take into consideration what these renewables have added — as a result of keep in mind, you’re including capability, however the capability utilization issue is sort of low on them. After which you have got Europe making the funding in there, however China making additional investments. The web of it’s clearly we haven’t made any progress. And I believe the important thing level that I used to be saying is that why OPEC is within the driver’s seat, , at an unprecedented degree is as a result of, , we inclusively of everyone outdoors of OPEC haven’t adequately invested in general vitality manufacturing, infrastructure and the power to provide and ship it. And I don’t care — and by the way in which, the international locations like Brazil, , was [indecipherable] about who’s going to be uncovered to this as a result of they increase rates of interest actually early within the cycle. They’re truly much less uncovered to what’s taking place proper now than let’s say Japan or Europe.”

#



LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here