Switching The World To Renewable Energy Will Cost $62 Trillion

[Argoo]

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.

[1715000598]

1715000598

[1715000598]

1715000598

[DudeAtWork420]

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.

[DrBeer]

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

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.

[DrBeer]

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

[Gyfts]

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.

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.

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.

[Casdinyard]

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.