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.
Read rest at the Financial Post
GOOD !
Biden’ll need an excuse when Gas hits $20/gallon.
They really love their Green with lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ including the idiots with their People before Profits they can always count on suck sucker financing them and Hollywood’s full of these small minded fools supporting some stupid liberal cause
The best locations for hydro-electricity generation are already built. I believe that the same can be said for wind and solar. Future installations will provide diminishing returns. Toronto, as left wing as any city in North America, won’t allow wind turbines along the Lake Ontario shore line. Nimby’s.
I was looking at: https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
…about an hour ago. Even in the middle of the day, California’s natural gas generation was above the combined ‘green’ generation. Imported power never dropped to zero. I guess there were a few clouds around.
This is what government does best…spend a buck for a few m&ms.