Money makes the world go round. And when it comes to energy, we're seeing more investment than ever: companies, research institutions, and governments are all pouring money into technologies that could help power our world in the future.
The International Energy Agency just published its annual report on global investment in energy, where it tallies up all that cash. The world saw about $2.8 trillion of investments in energy in 2022, with about $1.7 trillion of that going into clean energy.
That's the biggest single-year investment in clean energy ever, and where it's all going is pretty interesting. I have some good news, some bad news, and a couple of surprising tidbits to share. So grab some popcorn and let's dive into the data.
Let's start with what I consider to be good news: there's a lot of money going into clean energy—including renewables, nuclear, and things that help cut emissions, like EVs and heat pumps. And not only is it a lot of money, but it's more than the amount going toward fossil fuels. In 2022, for every dollar spent on fossil fuels, $1.70 went to clean energy. Just five years ago, it was dead even.
[...] Within clean energy, the vast majority of spending is going into renewables like wind and solar, grid upgrades, and efforts to improve energy efficiency.
But smaller sectors are growing quickly, especially when you look at projections for this year. I'm really excited to see how fast money is moving into electric vehicles: spending went from $29 billion as recently as 2020 to an expected $129 billion in 2023. And spending on batteries for energy storage is set to double between 2022 and 2023.
All that new money could change everything, and there are already big shifts in the battery industry because of it. We can't seem to go more than a few days without an announcement of a new battery factory (most recently, yet another multibillion-dollar factory in Georgia).
[...] To keep global warming below 1.5 °C over preindustrial levels and avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we need to reach net-zero emissions around 2050. If we're going to hit that goal, according to the IEA, annual investment needs to reach $4.5 trillion in 2030—nearly triple current spending.
Some technologies are actually in great shape. Solar spending just needs to keep growing as it has been for that sector to keep pace with the 2050 goal. But there needs to be much more spending in other areas, especially technologies like energy storage and transmission lines—that will help balance the grid as more solar and other intermittent renewable power sources come online. There's also a huge geographical imbalance, and poorer countries will need a significant boost to help build up their electrical grids and establish new technologies.
Investments are broadly on the right track, and I'm excited to see what next year's report will hold. But there's still definitely a long road ahead and a lot of building left to do.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by canopic jug on Friday June 02 2023, @04:44AM (2 children)
What about cutting off the $5.9 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies [imf.org]? They amount to $11 million per minute [theguardian.com] as of 2020, and have only increased since. Also, look at where the fossil fuel money eventually ends up and how it is being abused to fund the undermining and destruction of civilization globally.
The $5.9 trillion in subsidy money ought to be transferred to renewables, killing two birds with one stone.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2023, @05:02AM
The $5.9 trillion in subsidy money ought to be transferred to renewables, killing two birds with one windmill!! LOL! I kid! I kid! There's a better way [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Friday June 02 2023, @05:09AM
Shouldn't those subsidies exist first before we concern ourselves with cutting them off or transferring them elsewhere? I roll my eyes [soylentnews.org] every time the IMF's pet green group issues its latest retread - especially the treasured subsidy per minute metric.
The problem here remains that a fantasy externality pulled out of some wonk's ass does not a subsidy make. And most of the relatively minor real subsidies are oil producing countries subsidizing oil consumption (often at the expense of oil production!) by their citizens. Good luck getting a Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Russia to fund your renewable power. It's not in their interests.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2023, @11:20AM
Our electric utility newsletter has a little box that lists Fuel Sources. I saved the one for 2018 and just got the one for 2021 for their service area in the western end of NY State. Between those two years:
The big winner here is "natural gas", I guess because we're not all that far from fracking gas in western Pennsylvania? Gas is up from 41% to 51%.
Other winners are Solar from "less than 1%" to 2% and Solid Waste from 2% to 3%.
Losers are nuclear which drops from 35% to 28%, Hydro drops from 15% to 11% (not sure why, perhaps total production is up, while Hydro from nearby Niagara Falls is a fixed amount?), Coal drops from 4% to 2% and wind from 3% to 2%.
A few other bit players make the total 100%.