Topic: Switching The World To Renewable Energy Will Cost $62 Trillion (Read 282 times)

The price of anything hasn't stopped humans from switching to healthier choices. Since time immemorial it has been proven and tested that as long as large-scale companies do it, and is advertised for long enough. People will urge the rest of the planet to make the switch. GMO is one of these choices, and the same could be done for renewable energy since there are large groups and unions who are looking to make the switch or urge large-scale companies to make the switch even as early as 2007. So with enough voices from the masses and boycott for the things we do not like, the switch will happen regardless if it takes trillions to do so or not.

The world isn't ready to switch to renewable energy even if this money were to actually exist. The infrastructure required to house renewable energy resources aren't built yet and having to built this infrastructure would take more money and time than these studies can articulate. I've never seen a climate change related expenditure meet projected costs. They always go over budget. You also need to ask whether consumers are comfortable paying elevated taxes and higher energy prices for renewable energy, most aren't willing.


Interesting. A mere quibble over 62 trillion dollars in spending shouldn't stop anything, according to these folks.

Bold plans aren't enough. If the proposition is that the earth has limited time left before mass extinction climate related events, then putting forth a feasible plan for meeting the world's energy demands is what's appropriate. I've long been a proponent of nuclear energy. Some don't consider it to be "renewable" in the traditional sense because of waste pollution but I don't see that as an issue because of how far we've come in nuclear waste management. It's unfortunate that climate change activists are so against the only form of energy efficient enough to meet global energy demands and produce a fraction of the pollution that carbon based energy forms emit.

It happens. It's not bad or good, it's the way it is. But there is a plus - you have not had a deterioration in the situation. Others, who built industry and social instruments on the gas of the country of the international terrorist, had real problems. But this is retribution for flirting with terrorists. Russia has made attempts of economic terror more than once, and absolutely did not hide its goals - the total dependence of the EU industry and economy on their gas and oil, in order for the EU to become manageable and manual. Now the inhabitants of some EU countries (Germany, France, Italy) have suffered somewhat, but it's good that the problem has actually been solved. To date, these countries have already replaced 75% of the SYSTEM, gas supplies from Russia. Other countries that did not have such a rigid dependency solved this problem earlier. Well, globally - the world has understood that it is necessary to get rid of dependence on limited fossil energy sources

This process has already been launched, and the terrorist war unleashed by Russia, the largest supplier of hydrocarbons up to this point, has strongly pushed the world towards a faster transition. I am sure there is no way back, everyone is well aware of how negatively the world has become dependent on gas and oil, and everyone understands that it is critically important to get rid of this dependence. And as soon as possible. Despite the fact that such a transition has a quite acceptable payback period. Once again - for the global world economy, 62 billion dollars is not an unbearable burden and a net loss.

It is next to impossible to be fully converted to renewable energy right now. This will happens in the future but right now fossil fuel is the only option for mankind. Nuclear energy is costly and could be dangerous in certain circumstances. Solar energy is costly than oil and gas produced energy. Wind turbine is another option but most of the country will not be able to use it due to lack of suitable weather conditions.

There is still no alternative to switching to renewable energy sources. Oil and gas resources are already running out and humanity will have to switch to the use of renewable energy sources. Nuclear power plants are quite dangerous for the people themselves in the current period of drastic climate change, especially in countries where there is a danger of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Moreover, technologies for extracting energy from solar panels and wind turbines are rapidly improving and their efficiency is constantly growing, which significantly constantly reduces the cost of their use.

It may be expensive at the start, but once the renewable energy source is already in place,
it will just continuously to generate energy and the maintenance may be minimal to none.
We are already in the stage where we need to explore alternative energy sources and not be dependent from fossil fuel.
It may take time but slowly some countries are already tapping their renewable energy sources.
I believe some in the European countries are actively exploring this type of energy source because of the limited supply of Russian gas.
We can always find another alternative if we want to. Climate change is real.

Yes, it's expensive. But it is necessary. Whether we like it or not, hydrocarbons, whose derivatives are used as the main raw material for energy production, are not unlimited. Moreover, every year its available reserves will decrease, and the development of new ones will only increase the cost of "fossil fuel". This is not counting the cost of harm and damage caused by such fuel to the environment and human health. I am sure that the direct cost of the world for this is already in the billions and hundreds of billions. "Hidden" costs can be even greater, and prospective costs are commensurate with the indicated figures.
Therefore, dependence on fossil energy sources must be removed as quickly as possible. Moreover, some countries have begun to use these resources as a mechanism of terror to achieve their often illegal goals.

Germany? But, I thought it was Japan and Singapore are the first countries to be emission free in the next couple of years. I saw that on an advertisement before but I think that was true since all us know how strict and clean that two countries are.

I am not really familiar with Germany but maybe they are also following the footsteps of those said countries. People are aware that some governments are corrupt and they think that it's one of the effects of corruption on why idea's like this (using renewable energies) are not being adopted up to this date. It was not really the high cost but corrupt governments are only using that as an excuse.

There must be a political will for this to happen... and currently 3rd world countries with "Coal" and "Gas" and "Oil" are happy to sell those resources at a much cheaper price than what "clean" energy will cost them. The political leaders are pocketing most of the money that is supposed to go into the country... so their citizens remain poor.  

The moment when they monetize "clean" energy.... political leaders will take interest. Example : Create an "international power grid" and let other countries pay for the energy that is exported over their borders.  

That's the problem, that nuclear power plants create big problems for the inhabitants of the Earth, because they pose an increased danger to vast territories in case of emergencies. The safety of their work is greatly influenced by the climate and especially by earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and volcanic eruptions. We have already seen this during the Fukushima-1 accident in Japan. There, only 11 years later, local residents were allowed to return to their former place of residence. Until now, the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant makes itself felt. The Russian occupiers remembered this well when they dug in this spring in the forest near this nuclear power plant. A few weeks later they were taken to Belarus with obvious signs of radiation sickness, although 36 years have passed since the accident.
Now Russia has occupied the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant and due to the constant provocations of Russia, the world is again horrified by the fact that shells explode in the immediate vicinity and disrupt its normal energy supply, as a result of which it threatens an even greater accident than at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
Still, "green energy" is much cleaner and safer.

It's a huge amount and few countries like Germany is much focused on moving everything to renewable energy. This is gonna cost big, but the capital will be compensated in the long term out of the fund generated. Beyond all the money facts, it makes environment better for human survival.
Lot of things on the positive note happens out of renewable energy transition, but very few governments and politicians show interest. Because, it is one of the big industry through which good revenue is generated by government as well as politicians enjoy the goodness of corruption

Unfortunately, this school of thought though will work, but may not be adopted for use by many governments because the grievance they hold towards bitcoin will deter them from seeing and accepting a way through bitcoins to achieve their goal.

It will cost them a lot more if they chose not to seek new energy sources but to remain with the energy sources we have currently. Its a good plan for them seeking to transition, it is mechanism to achieve it that has to be reassuring.

62 trillion is a huge amount and I am not sure how this amount is reached! However, even if this happens, that will happen phase wise and not in one go! This will also gradually eliminate the need of traditional energy production which has its own environmental benefits.

So even if this cost is true, I believe the benefits will outrun the cost in long term and the humankind will see a cleaner tomorrow to breathe which is more important than the cost itself.

But it's 62$ Trillion in the short run
•You have to understand that the cost is going to rise for the non renewable sources of energy, consider the supply is going down day by day and we only got one planet, how are we going to survive and how will we make the whole planet go on as well ?
•What about sustainability?

Ofcourse this is like 3 times the GDP of USA, but then again no one has to pay this price, if it's well sought after and taken in small steps also demarcated as well, we would be able to solve this for once and for all, its an investment, it is not a label or market price, it's the solution that we do need.
•People+Government need to use them better
•They need to make the best out of it, you cannot drive a car efficiently if you don't know how to.

Yeah yeah, yeah


Electricity is not made out of apples that need to be collected at a warehouse before shipping and you would lose enormous amounts of it as well as spend billions on transformers and cables and towers for a useless cause. In the last two centuries in every country, power facilities have been built where the demand was, not joined together in a useless mega hub that would just waste resources.

I'm all in for having cheaper energy, which is what renewables are all about. Efficient and abundant despite of their demand, therefore cheap. The problem is in the title; they won't come as cheaply as imagined. Given the fact that most governments that depend on the U.S. need desperately energy supply, and given that the U.S. does have the power to fund the said companies, we can expect large quantitative easing, which will obviously happen at the expense of the citizens.

I think they should start seeing it in different way, but the statement that I will make needs T1 civilisation who is far more advance and where peeps are not divided from border to border, skin color to skin color and language and so on. . .

62 trillion is definitely lot of money but it’s not much if all those countries launch step by step projects by using the geographical advantages surrounding them. For example, from these numerous countries have big stretching desserts or some of them have coastal areas lengthier than the borders could separate. Using these they can set up giant solar stations, wind mills, hydro power stations etc to collect the energy into single mega station. From this surrounding countries should be powered up. This could also bring ho employment from all over the globe since these projects would be literally bigger than cities and counties!

It’s not like man has never done impossible things earlier. This isn’t difficult for humans who quickly understood how nuclear fission reaction from chemistry lab could be capable of destroying the whole nation!

I’m sure treaty can be formed to agree on this and create giant stations with that much money is possible. (If they really think we all are same).

The switch to renewable energy is very important and a pretty urgent matter. Of course, it costs a lot of money to perform the switch, but the benefits of doing so are very clear. It'll pay off in the end and, more importantly, there will be immense economic losses from NOT doing it as well.
I am a bit surprised, though, that the researchers didn't look at atomic energy. Nuclear waste is a challenge, but electricity from nuclear power stations is much cleaner than traditional, and I'm sure that could save at least some of those estimated trillions needed for the switch. It's also much more stable than wind or solar energy because it's not weather-dependent and also not climate-dependent.

It was necessary to switch to renewable energy sources many decades ago. This problem has been brewing since the last century, but oil and gas corporations did everything to prevent this from happening, up to the murder of inventors and the destruction of their inventions, which could interfere with their prosperous business. Only when the oil and gas reserves in the world remained for several decades did technologies for the extraction of energy from alternative sources begin to appear freely.
Of course, such technologies need to be implemented, even if their payback would be much longer.
By the way, the production of solar panels is rapidly improving and getting cheaper. Information has already appeared about reaching 31 percent of the efficiency, which until recently was considered unattainable.