Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

$44 Trillion Needed for Clean Energy Future

posted by Woods on Thursday May 15 2014, @08:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the everyone-check-your-mattress dept.

AnonTechie writes:

The global cost of securing a clean energy future is rising by the year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned Monday, estimating that an additional $44 trillion of investment was needed to meet 2050 carbon reduction targets. Releasing its biennial "Energy Technology Perspectives" report in Seoul, the agency said electricity would increasingly power the world's economies in the decades to come, rivalling oil as the dominant energy carrier. Surging electricity demand posed serious challenges, said IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven.
"We must get it right, but we're on the wrong path at the moment," Van der Hoeven told reporters in the South Korean capital.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
$44 Trillion Needed for Clean Energy Future | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 39 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Thursday May 15 2014, @09:48PM

    by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 15 2014, @09:48PM (#43970)

    Well said, and I'll add this:

    The longer we put it off, the more it will cost us when the switch is forced on us by necessity...Quadrillions by then, the way costs are rising.(hyperbole warning!)
    At that time 44 trillion will seem like a bargain.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday May 15 2014, @10:01PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 15 2014, @10:01PM (#43980) Journal

    The longer we put it off, the more it will cost us when the switch is forced on us by necessity...

    What's the basis for that claim? Are we spending all that money just to research vastly more expensive ways to switch? I know, if I have to "switch", I'm not going to employ the most expensive approach possible.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15 2014, @10:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15 2014, @10:57PM (#44003)
      Are you arguing just to argue or do you seriously not understand the extra expense caused by constantly accumulating pollution? 

      • (Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday May 15 2014, @11:12PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 15 2014, @11:12PM (#44013) Journal

        Are you arguing just to argue or do you seriously not understand the extra expense caused by constantly accumulating pollution?

        The question can easily be turned around. Do you?

        Pollution is also dispersed and rendered neutral. There is no example of constantly accumulating pollution. CO2 both has well known "carbon sinks" and a very weak pollution effect for the quantity emitted. And given that the proposed solutions to this "pollution" are supposedly getting cheaper all the time, what is the point of claiming "extra expense"?

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15 2014, @11:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15 2014, @11:53PM (#44029)
          How much cheaper do you think it'll get?  "Keep polluting until cleanup is free!"

          • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @12:54AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 16 2014, @12:54AM (#44049) Journal

            "Keep polluting until cleanup is free!"

            No, not at all. Keep polluting at a controlled level until we have more economic alternatives. I think it'll get a lot cheaper. And there's always time value and discount rates. Putting off a fixed cost really does make it cheaper.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @02:16AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @02:16AM (#44064)
              It isn't a fixed cost, even if you did manage to keep things at a controlled level. How cheap it will get is not predictable.  The costs of renewable energy will drop faster when usage is higher, so waiting provides no benefit there.  Basically the cover-your-eyes-and-hope-it-goes-away approach is continuing to not work. 

              • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @08:12AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 16 2014, @08:12AM (#44131) Journal

                The costs of renewable energy will drop faster when usage is higher, so waiting provides no benefit there.

                There are other, bigger priorities for humanity than slightly cheaper renewable energy. I see no reason not to wait, just on that basis.

                Basically the cover-your-eyes-and-hope-it-goes-away approach is continuing to not work.

                This is a false dilemma. Wait and see is not "cover-your-eyes-and-hope-it-goes-away". You really do need to show that doing something actually is better than the powerful economic advantages of doing nothing.

    • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday May 17 2014, @03:59PM

      by rts008 (3001) on Saturday May 17 2014, @03:59PM (#44651)

      Are you daft, trolling, or just being willfully obtuse?

      Costs go up over time for infrastructure, and always will under the current way of doing things.

      I bought my first new car and my first house for a total of $30,000.00(USD) back when.
      (Gasoline was $0.35(USD) per gallon around that time.)
      According to your reasoning, I should still be able to do either just as cheaply nowadays.

      Not a snowballs chance in hell, for that to happen this day and age.

      Stupid git.