SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the turning-green-into-greenbacks dept.
New study shows a fast transition to clean energy is cheaper than slow or no transition:
Transitioning to a decarbonised energy system by around 2050 is expected to save the world at least $12 trillion, compared to continuing our current levels of fossil fuel use, according to a peer-reviewed study today by Oxford University researchers, published in the journal Joule.
The research shows a win-win-win scenario, in which rapidly transitioning to clean energy results in lower energy system costs than a fossil fuel system, while providing more energy to the global economy, and expanding energy access to more people internationally.
The study's 'Fast Transition' scenario, shows a realistic possible future for a fossil-free energy system by around 2050, providing 55% more energy services globally than today, by ramping up solar, wind, batteries, electric vehicles, and clean fuels such as green hydrogen (made from renewable electricity).
[...] 'There is a pervasive misconception that switching to clean, green energy will be painful, costly and mean sacrifices for us all – but that's just wrong,' says Doyne Farmer, the Professor of Mathematics who leads the team that conducted the study at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School. 'Renewable costs have been trending down for decades. They are already cheaper than fossil fuels, in many situations, and our research shows they will become cheaper than fossil fuels across almost all applications in the years to come. And, if we accelerate the transition, they will become cheaper faster. Completely replacing fossil fuels with clean energy by 2050 will save us trillions.'
[...] Professor Farmer continues, 'The world is facing a simultaneous inflation crisis, national security crisis, and climate crisis, all caused by our dependence on high cost, insecure, polluting, fossil fuels with volatile prices. This study shows ambitious policies to accelerate dramatically the transition to a clean energy future, as quickly as possible, are not only urgently needed for climate reasons, but can save the world trillions in future energy costs, giving us a cleaner, cheaper, more energy secure future.'
Journal Reference:
Rupert Way, Matthew C. Ives, Penny Mealy, J. Doyne Farmer, Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition [open], Joule, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2022.08.009
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 21 2022, @12:53AM (3 children)
>Looks like from the first graph here
Again, the rates vary depending on where you are measuring. East Coast U.S. has been on a tear lately, relative to the not to distant past.
>My take is that once something floods, they won't rebuild, making the flooding irrelevant past the initial harm. Instead, they'll build on higher land and just not get that thousands of years of floods.
My observation is that the government draws a literal line in the sand, they call it the coastal construction control line, and when a part of an island gets wiped out by a hurricane or what have you, that line does indeed move and they do not (usually) build the land back up to restore the property for the past owners.
However, that coastal construction line tends to have a beach view, not only because people want to build near the beach, but also because governments want the tax income from the insanely high property values that constructions on the beach get assessed for.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 21 2022, @02:59AM (2 children)
Global average of course. Why would I cherrypick particular locations? I recall you brought this out before. But let's remember that while these are large at present compared to global sea level rise, they are limited. Even if all ice were to melt and raise global sea level by oh, 50-100 meters, these perturbations would add or subtract no more than they do now.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 21 2022, @10:06AM (1 child)
>Why would I cherrypick particular locations?
Oh, perhaps because the eastern seaboard of the United States has a little more infrastructure constructed on it's coastline than, say, Southern South America or Southern Africa.
The perturbations are (in many cases) persistent for decades. Ask the people in the Florida Keys who have had standing salt water in their driveways for the past 5 years how insignificant the "king tide" is to them.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday September 21 2022, @10:21AM
That doesn't have to be the case when your flooding scenarios happen. And it certainly won't be the case after the flooding scenarios happen.
How about I don't waste my time and just don't do that? What should be more important to me? Southern South America or Southern Africa, poor places that desperately need the modern world and its somewhat higher greenhouse gases emissions, or the Florida Keys people who can just move elsewhere, if higher sea level becomes a problem for them?