The Cost of Non-Renewable Infrastructure
You Remember the Stern Review
The Stern Review, published and published by the British Government in 2006, estimates that 1-year investment The global GDP percentage must be ahead of climate change avoiding worst effects. At the same time, the mantra, which we can not afford to invest in renewable energy sources, is repeated over and over again. Both concepts suggest that the alternative to renewable energy – our current fossil-fueled energy infrastructure – is at least free at least cheap or does not require significant investment.
It is not that in the absence of meaningful competition, fossil energy is in a monopoly position, that is, we have to pay for it.
subtracts the remaining fossil resources – the Arctic, deep on the ocean surface, tidal sand and rock beneath the surface – exploration becomes more expensive. At the same time, the cost of renewable energies decreases in technological development and mass production. Cost reduction is a function of the volume of investment (the larger the investment, the faster the cost reduction). An interesting question, then, is what will happen if we decide to launch a renewed transformation now?
Comparative Analysis of Two Different Scenarios, BP 2030's Energy Saving and Renewable Energy The Marshall Plan scenario says renewable energy is rapidly competitive and in some cases (wind energy) is cheaper than fossil alternatives.
Stern was wrong. This will pay 1% of global GDP per year to maintain the status quo – just energy, before we begin to weigh the real impact of climate change and increase extreme weather events. We can not afford to maintain the obsolete, fossil energy infrastructure.
We need sustainable profitability. And profitable sustainability.
Source by sbobet