So selective. take out hydro (or only count what was built in the last 10 or 15 years)...Biomass, even you Cant count that as green & beneficial for the planet.
How much was spent for that 'result' in part time/ never 24/7/365 power.
Here is a better representation of power so that you don't get a false understanding due to a biased graph.
Nuclear output is actually climbing (despite Germany).
And when you take out Hydro (which accounts for OVER 50% of your or MORE than wind, solar & other COMBINED ) your claimed 'new' power looks like nothing more than a lie ..or an attempt at deception, the result is piss POOR for the spend.
Why cant green power tell the whole truth, rather than representing their bias????
Call it a LIE.
Claims that wind and solar power are much cheaper than other energy sources are wildly deceptive given governments across the globe had to spend $2.7 trillion on the green transition last year alone.
and they want to spend a further $18 trillion by 2030.....this will not make the world a cleaner greener place.
The world needs to spend at least $US12 trillion, or more than $A18 trillion, over the next six years on renewables and grid infrastructure if it is to meet the climate targets set out at last year’s COP28 conference, according to a new study.
