- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
$1 Trillion Green Investment Matches Fossil Fuels For First Time
Posted on 1/29/23 at 9:23 am
Posted on 1/29/23 at 9:23 am
quote:
Global investments in the clean energy transition hit $1.1 trillion in 2022, roughly equal to the amount invested in fossil fuel production, the research firm said in its “Energy Transition Investment Trends 2023” report. Never before has the amount spent on switching to renewable power, electric cars and new energy sources like hydrogen topped $1 trillion.
quote:
Solar and wind power accounted for the biggest chunk of 2022 investments, reaching $495 billion, a 17% increase from the previous year. But electric vehicles came in close behind, with $466 billion, and the amount invested in them worldwide is growing far faster, at 54%. Nearly half of all global energy transition investments — $546 billion — were in China, while the US came in second at $141 billion. (Had BNEF counted the European Union as a single entity, it would have ranked second, with $180 billion.)
The $1.1 trillion covers money invested in deploying clean-energy technologies, according to BNEF. It does not include $274 billion spent worldwide last year on expanding and strengthening power grids, $79 billion invested in clean-energy supply chains and manufacturing or $119 billion in equity financing raised by clean-tech companies. Added together, the amount invested in the transition rises to about $1.6 trillion.
LINK
Posted on 1/29/23 at 9:24 am to ragincajun03
Imagine if they used it on something that really worked like nuclear.
Posted on 1/29/23 at 9:25 am to ragincajun03
1.099T went to politicians pockets
Posted on 1/29/23 at 9:27 am to St Augustine
quote:
Imagine if they used it on something that really worked like nuclear.
Was going to post the same thing
Posted on 1/29/23 at 9:32 am to ragincajun03
One of these "investments" is not like the other.
One of them will actually produce tangible energy.
One of them will actually produce tangible energy.
Posted on 1/29/23 at 9:41 am to ragincajun03
Invest more in green energy, CO2 emissions increases. Genius!
Posted on 1/29/23 at 9:52 am to St Augustine
quote:
Imagine if they used it on something that really worked like nuclear.
Carbon emissions would drop to basically nothing and then their excuse to use climate change to force political agendas would be negated.
Posted on 1/29/23 at 10:23 am to St Augustine
quote:
Imagine if they used it on something that really worked like nuclear.
Molten Salt Reactors baby.
* Developed same time as LWR
* Runs at ambient pressure
* Intrinsically safe
* Can burn today's waste and warheads if desired. Orders of magnitude shorter half life.
* More thorough burn of feed
* higher temps = free desalinization plants and even hydrogen separation for fuel cell cars. Just pipe the heat to sister plants nearby.
That we won't do it tells me all I need to know about green energy. Its a grift.
This post was edited on 1/29/23 at 10:25 am
Posted on 1/29/23 at 10:25 am to ragincajun03
quote:
But electric vehicles came in close behind, with $466 billion
This isn’t a new energy source but rather a new energy consumer though. Calling electric car investment “Green Investment” is like saying ICE powered vehicle investment “fossil fuel investment”.
Posted on 1/29/23 at 10:28 am to ragincajun03
quote:
Nearly half of all global energy transition investments — $546 billion — were in China, while the US came in second at $141 billion. (Had BNEF counted the European Union as a single entity, it would have ranked second, with $180 billion.)
Notice it says the investments were “in” China and the EU, not “by” China and the EU. The paragraph is written in a way to shame the US as somehow being slow to follow their leads when, in fact, the US is likely funding a good portion of the taxpayer-funded investments in China and the EU.
Posted on 1/29/23 at 10:36 am to ragincajun03
One unstable child, having a Princip-like effect on the global economy.
This post was edited on 1/29/23 at 10:37 am
Posted on 1/29/23 at 10:37 am to DerkaDerka
quote:
That we won't do it tells me all I need to know about green energy. Its a grift.
It's also about control. And reducing American influence globally.
Posted on 1/29/23 at 10:43 am to ragincajun03
Not by market forces.
Posted on 1/29/23 at 10:51 am to St Augustine
quote:
Imagine if they used it on something that really worked like nuclear.
Nuke about to start popping now that Biden subsidized it.
Posted on 1/29/23 at 10:54 am to DerkaDerka
quote:
Molten Salt Reactors baby.
Isn’t Bill Gates building a micro sodium nuclear reactor out west somewhere?
Posted on 1/29/23 at 11:42 am to ragincajun03
This money should be spent on developing new sustainable technologies instead of wasting it on existing technologies that do more harm to the environment.
Posted on 1/29/23 at 11:58 am to St Augustine
Are you saying we shouldn't use the free floating nuclear reacting in our sky?
Posted on 1/29/23 at 12:05 pm to St Augustine
quote:
Imagine if they used it on something that really worked like nuclear.
I sort of think that the developed nations should run on nuclear energy as much as possible. Maybe it would be better off to use things like wind turbines and solar panels in developing nations as they don’t have the faculties to maintain large plants.
Posted on 1/29/23 at 12:22 pm to DerkaDerka
quote:
That we won't do it tells me all I need to know about green energy. Its a grift.
Or the fact that we aren’t seriously investing in carbon capture technology.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News