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.
October 27, 2022, 03:09:34 PM
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.
Quote
People may quibble over some of the timing and access to the raw and manufactured materials needed to complete a changeover to 100% renewable energy. They may worry that there is not enough political will to make this happen. Those are valid concerns. But what the Stanford team is doing is setting a target. As Forrest Gump said, “If you don’t know where you are going, you’re not likely to end up there.”
It’s easy to say the task is too hard or too expensive or pushes too far, too fast. Those might be concerns for ordinary challenges. But when the objective is preserving the Earth as a sustainable place where human beings can live, making bold plans is really the least we can do.
It’s easy to say the task is too hard or too expensive or pushes too far, too fast. Those might be concerns for ordinary challenges. But when the objective is preserving the Earth as a sustainable place where human beings can live, making bold plans is really the least we can do.
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.
October 27, 2022, 12:44:54 PM
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.
For us energy crisis is not a big deal in my country - we have bee experiencing gas and electricity power outage since long. The problems have not been fixed since the creation of my country. But on the other hand in west - there is no understanding for the local people about power outage. Now people are shifting to solar energy.
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
October 23, 2022, 03:41:39 PM
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.
you are right - it is expensive but it is important. With the passage of time we have to shift to the new technique for a better and brighter future of the world 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.
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.
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.
October 23, 2022, 09:09:51 AM
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.
October 23, 2022, 12:39:11 AM
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.
October 22, 2022, 04:34:43 PM
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.
you are right - it is expensive but it is important. With the passage of time we have to shift to the new technique for a better and brighter future of the world 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.
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.
October 19, 2022, 02:45:16 PM
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.
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.
October 19, 2022, 12:05:11 PM
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.
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.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.
October 15, 2022, 07:11:06 AM
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.
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.
October 15, 2022, 05:40:08 AM
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.
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.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.
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.
October 12, 2022, 03:38:40 PM
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.
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.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.
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 
October 12, 2022, 03:09:36 PM
If the market price of bitcoin were higher. The same goals might be achieved by setting up wind and solar farms to mine bitcoin. Then using the profits to fund the expansion of renewable power and EVs.
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.They claim a global shift to renewable energy would cost $62 trillion and pay for itself in 6 years.
It will cost them a lot more if they chose not to seek new energy sources but to remain with the energy sources we have currently. Its a good plan for them seeking to transition, it is mechanism to achieve it that has to be reassuring.
October 12, 2022, 01:34:20 PM
62 trillion is a huge amount and I am not sure how this amount is reached! However, even if this happens, that will happen phase wise and not in one go! This will also gradually eliminate the need of traditional energy production which has its own environmental benefits.
So even if this cost is true, I believe the benefits will outrun the cost in long term and the humankind will see a cleaner tomorrow to breathe which is more important than the cost itself.
So even if this cost is true, I believe the benefits will outrun the cost in long term and the humankind will see a cleaner tomorrow to breathe which is more important than the cost itself.
October 12, 2022, 01:21:23 PM
But it's 62$ 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.
•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.
October 12, 2022, 01:09:57 PM
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.
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.
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.
October 12, 2022, 12:11:07 PM
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).
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.
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.
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.
Quote
“We do not need miracle technologies to solve these problems. By electrifying all energy sectors; producing electricity from clean, renewable sources; creating heat, cold, and hydrogen from such electricity; storing electricity, heat, cold and the hydrogen; expanding transmission; and shifting the time of some electricity use, we can create safe, cheap, and reliable energy everywhere,” Jacobson says. He is a staunch supporter of the Green New Deal.
It would be great if this would work just like that, but, for example storing electricity can be a problem, since afaik the world doesn't have the technology to reliably store huge quantities of electricity. Keyword: huge.
I have a feeling that some want to go from one (current) extreme to another. No. We need a middle ground, where current infrastructure is still being used and give time to the new infrastructure be developed and also the technology advance. We all know that sun is not always shining and wind doesn't always blow when and where we'd like, plus hurricanes/tornados, or stors, or snow happen. Some tend to take into account the ideal conditions 24/7.
Ideally we'd have already nuclear fusion, but we don't. And while fission is messy and dangerous, it's still one of the best choices we have if we want to ditch coal, gas and petrol.
I also don't think the numbers (prices and recovery) are accurate. The inflation is big and it's bound to continue rising for a while. Certain rare earths and lithium may become overly expensive if the demand rises abruptly. And they're only the first things that come to my mind.
I don't say we shouldn't go in this direction too. Investing only in new gas pipes/routes would be stupid. But assume bigger costs and don't go heads first like into the "all gas" situation we have now, since wind and sun are also region dependent.
Im not sure it will cost anything extra while including costs to only continue the past methods, in theory energy should become more efficient and cost less potentially. I get that solar panels have to bought but our current system is about burning fuel constantly so this massive figure appears wrong in full comparison to present costs. We have massive renewal costs on normal engines and old tech I believe we reduce this cost going forward with better systems.
In general switching our energy sources to renewable energies is a great idea, it would help to stop global warming and let's us live a more responsible lifestyle. The problem is that we need to be able to afford it and not ruin our economy with. 63 trillion USD is an insane number that there is no way the world can pull it off at the moment. Most countries were still hurting from the covid pandemic when being dragged into the rising energy prices/inflation crisis. Most targets to reduce co2 emission where set during economic boom times and not during recessions we are facing now. The world is waking up now, investing more into the defense sector and is going to slowly move away from renewable energy targets. Focusing more on atomic energy is one alternative. The main issue for me is that the world is not working together on this. It makes only sense to reduce fossil fuels when all countries follow the same plan, otherwise countries work against each other and try to profit from the savings of another country.
If 62 trillion dollars were invested, the return would be 11 trillion, and due to inflation, it would take more than 10 years to recover the value.
The most difficult thing is not finding this money, but how to convince countries to invest it? What will force North Korea to limit itself to clean electricity instead of cheaper fossil fuels, from which the heavily indebted countries will not comply and so on.
The Conference of Parties 26th, or COP26 could not come out with any binding promises.
The most difficult thing is not finding this money, but how to convince countries to invest it? What will force North Korea to limit itself to clean electricity instead of cheaper fossil fuels, from which the heavily indebted countries will not comply and so on.
The Conference of Parties 26th, or COP26 could not come out with any binding promises.
We strongly believe that going by the adoption of the use of a renewable energy source could bring alot of ease to the global energy challenge and the high cost to securing it, but we cannot expect the massive switch come in place at once, it's a gradual steps whereby there will be less dependent on the electrical energy being handled by the government and certain individuals or corporate affairs could solely depend on the renewable source for their sustainability in the world economy system for maximum productivity on baseless cost effective.
Quote
Mark Jacobson and his colleagues at Stanford University have published a new study in the journal Energy & Environmental Science that claims 145 of the world’s nations could switch to 100% renewable energy in a few years using renewable energy technologies available today. They recommend the world make the switchover by 2035, but in no event later than 2050. Their goal is to have 80% operating on renewable energy by 2030.
The researchers looked at onshore and offshore wind energy, solar power, solar heat, geothermal electricity and heat, hydroelectricity, and small amounts of tidal and wave electricity. Batteries were the most common electricity storage solution, with the team finding that no batteries with more than four hours of storage were necessary.
“We do not need miracle technologies to solve these problems. By electrifying all energy sectors; producing electricity from clean, renewable sources; creating heat, cold, and hydrogen from such electricity; storing electricity, heat, cold and the hydrogen; expanding transmission; and shifting the time of some electricity use, we can create safe, cheap, and reliable energy everywhere,” Jacobson says. He is a staunch supporter of the Green New Deal.
The researchers say switching to renewable energy would avoid utility grid blackouts and save consumers trillions of dollars. One of the main reasons for that finding is that the combustion-based energy systems most countries rely require a lot of energy just to function. In switching to a clean, renewable energy system, Jacobson states that worldwide energy usage would go down by 56% immediately.
Renewable Energy & Efficiency
Those savings are attributable to the efficiency of clean energy over combustion systems, as well as the efficiency of electrified industry. There would no longer be a need to explore for oil, coal, and gas, drill wells or dig new mines, transport oil to refineries, build and maintain pipelines, or truck petroleum products to end users, according to My Modern Met.
Efficiency is something that people who drive electric cars should understand quite well. A gallon of gasoline has the equivalent energy of a 33.7 kWh battery. Many electric cars today have a range of 300 miles or more, which means they can travel that far on the equivalent of 3 gallons of gasoline. A first generation LEAF had a 24 kWh battery, which means it was so efficient, it could go about 80 miles on the equivalent of about .8 gallons of gasoline.
A typical internal combustion engine is 20 to 25% efficient, which means three-quarters of what you pay for is wasted as friction or heat. An electric car is 80 to 95% efficient. In a world that is rapidly overheating, how much longer can we afford to be so profligate with our energy usage? Would you pay $100 for a suit that was worth only $25? Of course not, and yet every time people fill their tanks with gasoline, they are wasting three-quarters of the energy they are paying for.
The problem is similar when we consider thermal generation of electricity. The amount of energy wasted in the process it simply staggering, and yet we continue to generate electricity that way because it is what we are used to and we can’t see another way. Jacobson and company are shining a bright light on an alternate pathway.
Non-Economic Benefits, Too
The study is mostly about economics, but there are significant and quantifiable health benefits to not filling our lungs with air that is mixed with the harmful pollutants that result from combustion. People are hyper-vigilant about what they put in the bodies today and yet they never give a thought to the crud they breathe and drink and eat that is left over after fossil fuels are burned.
The cost of making the changeover to 100% renewable energy would be a staggering $62 trillion. Wow! That is a ton of money, people. But here’s the thing. Jacobson and his team say the savings from switching the world to 100% renewable energy would be $11 trillion a year. In other words, the initial investment would be paid back in just 6 years! Many people have a hard time distinguishing between an investment and an expense. They tend to see that $62 trillion as an expense and ignore the payback.
Ford is spending $40 billion to transition to making electric cars. Volkswagen, Mercedes, GM, BMW, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota are doing the same. Does anyone think that money is just an expense or that the managers of those companies have not calculated the expected return on their investment down to the fraction of a penny? Why do we continue to view the cost of transferring to renewable energy as an expense and not an investment, one that will pay economic and non-economic benefits for generations?
Wind and sunshine are free. Once the systems to harvest energy from them are completed, the cost of fuel is zero. Yes, those resources will need to be updated, refurbished or replaced over time, just the way utility grids and thermal generating stations need to be as well. But the cost of fuel remains at zero while the price of fossil fuels gyrates radically over time.
There’s one other aspect of renewable energy that you can’t put a price on but it’s extremely valuable nonetheless — energy security. Nations that generate their own electricity don’t need to be at the mercy of lunatics and despots who can decide at any time to cut off the supply of oil, or unnatural gas, or coal. How much is that worth? It may be hard to answer that question, but it is clearly not nothing. The people of Europe are facing a long cold winter because the supply of cheap methane from Russia has ended abruptly. How much would energy security be worth to them?
The Takeaway
In the conclusion to their study, Jacobson and his research colleagues say, “Transitioning to 100% [renewable energy] in 145 countries decreases energy requirements and annual private and social costs while creating about 28.4 million more long term, full time jobs than lost. A 100% [renewable energy] economy uses only about 0.53% of the 145 country land area, with 0.17% for footprint and 0.36% for spacing.”
People may quibble over some of the timing and access to the raw and manufactured materials needed to complete a changeover to 100% renewable energy. They may worry that there is not enough political will to make this happen. Those are valid concerns. But what the Stanford team is doing is setting a target. As Forrest Gump said, “If you don’t know where you are going, you’re not likely to end up there.”
It’s easy to say the task is too hard or too expensive or pushes too far, too fast. Those might be concerns for ordinary challenges. But when the objective is preserving the Earth as a sustainable place where human beings can live, making bold plans is really the least we can do.
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/06/switching-the-world-to-renewable-energy-will-cost-62-trillion-but-the-payback-would-take-just-6-years/
The researchers looked at onshore and offshore wind energy, solar power, solar heat, geothermal electricity and heat, hydroelectricity, and small amounts of tidal and wave electricity. Batteries were the most common electricity storage solution, with the team finding that no batteries with more than four hours of storage were necessary.
“We do not need miracle technologies to solve these problems. By electrifying all energy sectors; producing electricity from clean, renewable sources; creating heat, cold, and hydrogen from such electricity; storing electricity, heat, cold and the hydrogen; expanding transmission; and shifting the time of some electricity use, we can create safe, cheap, and reliable energy everywhere,” Jacobson says. He is a staunch supporter of the Green New Deal.
The researchers say switching to renewable energy would avoid utility grid blackouts and save consumers trillions of dollars. One of the main reasons for that finding is that the combustion-based energy systems most countries rely require a lot of energy just to function. In switching to a clean, renewable energy system, Jacobson states that worldwide energy usage would go down by 56% immediately.
Renewable Energy & Efficiency
Those savings are attributable to the efficiency of clean energy over combustion systems, as well as the efficiency of electrified industry. There would no longer be a need to explore for oil, coal, and gas, drill wells or dig new mines, transport oil to refineries, build and maintain pipelines, or truck petroleum products to end users, according to My Modern Met.
Efficiency is something that people who drive electric cars should understand quite well. A gallon of gasoline has the equivalent energy of a 33.7 kWh battery. Many electric cars today have a range of 300 miles or more, which means they can travel that far on the equivalent of 3 gallons of gasoline. A first generation LEAF had a 24 kWh battery, which means it was so efficient, it could go about 80 miles on the equivalent of about .8 gallons of gasoline.
A typical internal combustion engine is 20 to 25% efficient, which means three-quarters of what you pay for is wasted as friction or heat. An electric car is 80 to 95% efficient. In a world that is rapidly overheating, how much longer can we afford to be so profligate with our energy usage? Would you pay $100 for a suit that was worth only $25? Of course not, and yet every time people fill their tanks with gasoline, they are wasting three-quarters of the energy they are paying for.
The problem is similar when we consider thermal generation of electricity. The amount of energy wasted in the process it simply staggering, and yet we continue to generate electricity that way because it is what we are used to and we can’t see another way. Jacobson and company are shining a bright light on an alternate pathway.
Non-Economic Benefits, Too
The study is mostly about economics, but there are significant and quantifiable health benefits to not filling our lungs with air that is mixed with the harmful pollutants that result from combustion. People are hyper-vigilant about what they put in the bodies today and yet they never give a thought to the crud they breathe and drink and eat that is left over after fossil fuels are burned.
The cost of making the changeover to 100% renewable energy would be a staggering $62 trillion. Wow! That is a ton of money, people. But here’s the thing. Jacobson and his team say the savings from switching the world to 100% renewable energy would be $11 trillion a year. In other words, the initial investment would be paid back in just 6 years! Many people have a hard time distinguishing between an investment and an expense. They tend to see that $62 trillion as an expense and ignore the payback.
Ford is spending $40 billion to transition to making electric cars. Volkswagen, Mercedes, GM, BMW, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota are doing the same. Does anyone think that money is just an expense or that the managers of those companies have not calculated the expected return on their investment down to the fraction of a penny? Why do we continue to view the cost of transferring to renewable energy as an expense and not an investment, one that will pay economic and non-economic benefits for generations?
Wind and sunshine are free. Once the systems to harvest energy from them are completed, the cost of fuel is zero. Yes, those resources will need to be updated, refurbished or replaced over time, just the way utility grids and thermal generating stations need to be as well. But the cost of fuel remains at zero while the price of fossil fuels gyrates radically over time.
There’s one other aspect of renewable energy that you can’t put a price on but it’s extremely valuable nonetheless — energy security. Nations that generate their own electricity don’t need to be at the mercy of lunatics and despots who can decide at any time to cut off the supply of oil, or unnatural gas, or coal. How much is that worth? It may be hard to answer that question, but it is clearly not nothing. The people of Europe are facing a long cold winter because the supply of cheap methane from Russia has ended abruptly. How much would energy security be worth to them?
The Takeaway
In the conclusion to their study, Jacobson and his research colleagues say, “Transitioning to 100% [renewable energy] in 145 countries decreases energy requirements and annual private and social costs while creating about 28.4 million more long term, full time jobs than lost. A 100% [renewable energy] economy uses only about 0.53% of the 145 country land area, with 0.17% for footprint and 0.36% for spacing.”
People may quibble over some of the timing and access to the raw and manufactured materials needed to complete a changeover to 100% renewable energy. They may worry that there is not enough political will to make this happen. Those are valid concerns. But what the Stanford team is doing is setting a target. As Forrest Gump said, “If you don’t know where you are going, you’re not likely to end up there.”
It’s easy to say the task is too hard or too expensive or pushes too far, too fast. Those might be concerns for ordinary challenges. But when the objective is preserving the Earth as a sustainable place where human beings can live, making bold plans is really the least we can do.
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/06/switching-the-world-to-renewable-energy-will-cost-62-trillion-but-the-payback-would-take-just-6-years/
....
They claim a global shift to renewable energy would cost $62 trillion and pay for itself in 6 years. Very ambitious and optimistic. Unfortunately we haven't seen much in the way of pilot programs or small scale ventures of this type which have shown promise of being successful. Which would draw public confidence given the negative direction energy markets have taken recently.
If the market price of bitcoin were higher. The same goals might be achieved by setting up wind and solar farms to mine bitcoin. Then using the profits to fund the expansion of renewable power and EVs. These sentiments have been echoed for many years. And I have recently seen some big authors on substack propose using this format to fund the expansion of renewable energy in africa.
The fossil fuel vs renewable energy debate will continue to rage on. Fossil fuels definitely have greater energy density at significantly lower efficiency. While renewables trend towards lower energy density with higher efficiency. Its an interesting contrast. I think technology has advanced to a point where EVs and renewables now have the advantage. Although it will take time for mass adoption to occur.
Jump to: