Guest “You are right, but for the wrong reason” by David Middleton
Citigroup still has ESG analysts? That means So 2021. That means they are correct. President Trump can't stop something that doesn't happen. To the extent that a “transition” takes place, it is from coal to natural gas. This is not really a transition. Both are fossil -based fuels based on carbon with high energy density. It is more of an energy clearance work than a transition.
While the coal exceeded renewable energies (wood) at the end of the 19th century, we never removed from eating wood for energy.
There is absolutely no evidence to a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies (unreliastic).
In 1949 there was no nuclear energy generation and renewable energies were quite limited to hydropower and wood. From 1949 to 2023, the entire energy generation of the United States triples more than tripled. To the extent that fossil fuels were sold, it was mainly through nuclear energy. Despite the subsidies of USD $, renewable energies have hardly moved from 6% to 8%.
| Year | Fossil fuels | Nuclear | Renewable energy | Energy generation (quads) |
| 1949 | 94% | 0% | 6% | 30.61 |
| 2023 | 84% | 8% | 8% | 102.78 |
This piece is funny:
The energy transfer has progressed and is now more advanced than as President Trump in 2017 into the White House for the first time.
Oilprice.com
Really?
I am not an ESG analyst, but I did in the Pleistocene Moll in mathematics:
| Year | Fossil fuels | Nuclear | Renewable energy | Energy generation (quads) |
| 2017 | 81% | 10% | 9% | 84.36 |
| 2023 | 84% | 8% | 8% | 102.78 |
The growth of the US energy generation since 2017 has been driven almost exclusively by crude oil and natural gas.
Energy transfer …
Fossil fuels …
Life expectancy: our world in data, energy consumption: Bjorn Lomborg, 2020
Like this:
Load…
Related
Do you discover more from watts?
Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.
Comments are closed.