Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

So your theory is "let's try and HOPE we will be able before the society collapse to make the new deal works"? If so consider a thing: that's a CRIMINAL act even in case of desperation. A society MUST never act without basis.

A company can, and individual can because there is a society around to help, the whole society can't because if something goes wrong there is exactly no one around to help.

In desperate cases desperate measures are meant to still reach a probable, defined outcome, like deciding to leave many alone, facing unrest etc BUT never hoping for something new to arrive in time: science and industry do not work like that and in general do work only when there are comfort condition for a long period of time.

Personally in case of a society collapse, knowing well we can't live in nature anymore, more than dietary calories I would seek revenge in the meat of those I consider guilty, the topmost figure I can reach with the most inhuman and fierce sentiment BTW...

Apart of that my point is simple: we have something that work, but is not sustainable since we consume resources more than natural reintegration rates. We DO NOT have alternatives so far. The answer must be try to discover them NOT try to push something we know can't scale nor work on scale nor reproduce itself.

With oil you can re-create oil industry. With nuclear you can't but at least you can made tools needed to re-create it. With p.v. and wind power you can't and you can't also create tools needed to re-create panels, inverters etc.

So far we know that we do not have nor we can't have in time a global superconductive hypothetical mega-grid to get stable enough energy supply because on enough part of the world Sun always shining and wind always blows. We do not have no viable solution for energy storage except for small scale needs for limited applications. Let's say we probably even can't have enough batteries to power modern homes for even a small fraction of the total population.

So the theory is: well, at least we can reduce energy consumption. YES, we can, with p.v. (wind provide too little and too inconstant power) BUT we can't connect it to the grid keeping the grid stable without a big and hyper-fast backup (lithium) and that's why originally BEVs was designed: to be always connected in large enough batches to compensate p.v. oscillations quick enough. UNFORTUNATELY so far:

- BEVs on sale have NO integration features for such use case, even for a personal scale like a domestic p.v. + the car as an extra battery talking to home inverters sucking power when the Sun shine, offering power when it's needed;

- nothing is even designed for a nation-wide smart grid;

- no electric appliance on sale is designed to be smart for p.v. integration, even those who actually claim the contrary.

So far we have NO smart-car battery chargers who talk a common and open protocol (let's say via canbus) allowing a human at home or in the car to state:

- charge car battery at {maximum,minimum} SOC {ONLY from p.v,also from grid to reach a minimum SOC at $TIME}

- car, do provide high voltage standard DC power to the home battery-charger/p.v. inverter as demanded not going below $SOC except in case of outage mode where the minimum SOC descend to near-zero.

Nothing is even debated about how to use privately owned cars to backup the grid providing relevant compensation for the service to their owner (please do not cite Tesla, they made proprietary stuff, innovative in general but of a so crappy quality that's a crime asking more than their production costs on sale).

So far no home appliance embed a standard protocol to be centrally controllable by a home server/solar inverter to do the ONLY current reasonable thing: p.v. self-consumption as much as possible.

Essentially anything on sale, sold as a commercial product, is more a dumb prototype made by some who do not even have clear ideas about it's usage. And you thing that's a "tremendous effort the humanity actually made for a better future"? Are you kidding? Let's start outline a real, resonate high-level overview plan instead.

however bad we will handle it, thee planet will be just fine.

global warming is problem not for the planet or nature, but for humans.

if all humans will die, and 99% of species die, planet will still be ok the nature will still live on.

just that our last record of existence for anybody else to find will be "we were stupid".

If you look at the copper futures chart the current price is below a few peaks but it is still quite high, historically speaking. That is in the face of a real estate crash in China and impending global economic slowdown(a significant portion of which is due to energy malinvestment).

On a related note, the majority of new home construction does not use copper these days(both for cost reasons and performance reasons).

I thought the other poster's comment was relevant, so I didn't answer (I posted an earlier comment being replied to). FWIW, I instead would have suggested that natural gas could cover any shortages, since this type of power is easy to turn on and off, and fits more with the theme of "this is potentially possible today".

The simulation over produced energy from green source. Looking at the chart - looks like the wind power alone was enough to satisfy the grid if available. Given that, I do think it's possible that a mere 5 hours of backup can keep the grid 98% renewable, turning to hydro when solar + wind is not enough. Also solar / wind may be somewhat inversely correlated and north / south Australia also may have different weather patterns.

Given a large enough sampling of the world, I'd imagine it would be easier to find the wind / solar power you want, although politics could potentially make that harder.

The original question was - is the money in corporate warchests being used productively or is it lost to the economy.

Noone has demobstrated it is beong used productively. O am illustrating that some investments are terrible for the economy.