I have built project s in Asia related to Renewable energy. Way before Paris agreement. Built microfinance along with bank guarantee s for smaller investment and community. There is more room and opportunities not just for developing but also for larger nation's.
Lake Turkana has installed capacity of 310MW while Kenya installed capacity is 3000MW. This means the assertion that lake Turkana is 70% is not correct. Kindly review and revise or explain what you meant.
Investing in renewable energy in developing countries is a terrible idea. Developing countries need cheap, reliable energy even more than developed countries. Renewables provide intermittent, low-density energy, the opposite of what they need. If you want to invest, follow the lead of Indonesia developing advanced nuclear energy that will be cheaper than coal.
Reading most of the comments here makes me realize how out of touch many people are with reality. Reality is that we are going to die if we continue on with fossil fuels and the endless wars that come with them. So if I was a millionaire then I would not hesitate in investing in green energy. Fossil fuels are on the way out and nuclear power is too risky.
The Paris agreement only serves for developed countries such as US, Canada or Europe while always seen with greedy and bad eyes countries in development ignoring the fact that it’s a privilege being part of that agreement. And according to them of course the problem is third world countries or in development never doing something for the pollution the developed countries create and their problem with the fast fashion. Sadly renewable energy’s are patented making it hard to change the economy of this countries. This to me sound super Capitalistic and zero of having conscious on climate change
You are confusing carbon emissions with climate change. CO2 is a natural gas which plants need to breath. Its effect in the atmosphere is harmless and has a tiny effect on heating water vapour when excited by one frequency of infrared light. Climate change is also natural and has gone on for every decade of Earth's existence - we are currently in an Ice Age (Quaternary) and temperatures are well below average. If you are concerned about an increase in average Earth surface temperature you should look to methane (another natural gas) which has a much stronger effect on heating water vapour. No, investing in "renewable energy" in developing countries is an option for them, not western investors. If they want wind, nuclear and solar, fine by me; there is no return on investment, so my pension would dive. Bad idea.
@@mrcleeves7106 There is no profit from renewable energy for a number of reasons. The investment in solar panels or wind turbines makes break even many years down the line, assuming the market for power is subsidised to make it competitive to nuclear or fossil fuel. The production of panels and turbines requires an up front carbon burn which means it would be at least a decade before achieving and carbon benefit also. Put simply, it is not an attractive investment or the saharan countries would be raking it in. Just 2% of the Sahara covered in solar panels would generate the same power the entire world uses, but only during the day, in Africa. Honestly, biofuel from planting in arid climates would be a long term benefit provided that irrigation could be implemented. That way we reap CO2 from the atmosphere and burn it back where and when we need it. This occurs naturally; the entire Sahara has been green lush woodland 18 times during the past 2.6 million years.
I have built project s in Asia related to Renewable energy. Way before Paris agreement. Built microfinance along with bank guarantee s for smaller investment and community. There is more room and opportunities not just for developing but also for larger nation's.
Lake Turkana has installed capacity of 310MW while Kenya installed capacity is 3000MW. This means the assertion that lake Turkana is 70% is not correct. Kindly review and revise or explain what you meant.
Investing in renewable energy in developing countries is a terrible idea. Developing countries need cheap, reliable energy even more than developed countries. Renewables provide intermittent, low-density energy, the opposite of what they need. If you want to invest, follow the lead of Indonesia developing advanced nuclear energy that will be cheaper than coal.
It's also about cleaner and safer energy source
@@Burner-nf8ki Exactly, nuclear power is cleaner and equally safe.
Reading most of the comments here makes me realize how out of touch many people are with reality. Reality is that we are going to die if we continue on with fossil fuels and the endless wars that come with them. So if I was a millionaire then I would not hesitate in investing in green energy. Fossil fuels are on the way out and nuclear power is too risky.
The Paris agreement only serves for developed countries such as US, Canada or Europe while always seen with greedy and bad eyes countries in development ignoring the fact that it’s a privilege being part of that agreement. And according to them of course the problem is third world countries or in development never doing something for the pollution the developed countries create and their problem with the fast fashion. Sadly renewable energy’s are patented making it hard to change the economy of this countries. This to me sound super Capitalistic and zero of having conscious on climate change
123
Jujjjjj
FALSE SOLUTION
such a poor quality speech
You are confusing carbon emissions with climate change. CO2 is a natural gas which plants need to breath. Its effect in the atmosphere is harmless and has a tiny effect on heating water vapour when excited by one frequency of infrared light.
Climate change is also natural and has gone on for every decade of Earth's existence - we are currently in an Ice Age (Quaternary) and temperatures are well below average. If you are concerned about an increase in average Earth surface temperature you should look to methane (another natural gas) which has a much stronger effect on heating water vapour.
No, investing in "renewable energy" in developing countries is an option for them, not western investors. If they want wind, nuclear and solar, fine by me; there is no return on investment, so my pension would dive. Bad idea.
Why would there be no return on investment?
@@mrcleeves7106 There is no profit from renewable energy for a number of reasons. The investment in solar panels or wind turbines makes break even many years down the line, assuming the market for power is subsidised to make it competitive to nuclear or fossil fuel.
The production of panels and turbines requires an up front carbon burn which means it would be at least a decade before achieving and carbon benefit also. Put simply, it is not an attractive investment or the saharan countries would be raking it in. Just 2% of the Sahara covered in solar panels would generate the same power the entire world uses, but only during the day, in Africa. Honestly, biofuel from planting in arid climates would be a long term benefit provided that irrigation could be implemented. That way we reap CO2 from the atmosphere and burn it back where and when we need it. This occurs naturally; the entire Sahara has been green lush woodland 18 times during the past 2.6 million years.