In conversations with the uninitiated, I often get
asked the question of how much renewable energy
costs compared with conventional energy from fossil
fuels or nuclear power. The assumption is always
that renewable energy costs more. Today, Greenpeace
and the European Renewable Energy Council want to
put the record straight. They've published a report
on the relative costs of renewable energy and
conventional energy, and their key finding is that
renewable energy costs less, not more -- and a lot
less.
In their joint report
"Future Investment - A sustainable investment plan
for the power sector to save the climate"
Greenpeace and Erec point out that a global move
from fossil fuels and nuclear to renewable energy
would cost just a tenth of what it will cost to keep
burning fossil fuels, and that investment in
renewable electricity could save up to $180 billion
a year in fuel costs and cut carbon dioxide
emissions in half by 2030.
Key to these arguments
is the vast amount that must be spent on building
10,000 new fossil fuel power plants to power
emerging economies like China, India and Brazil and
the impact that all this additional demand would
have on the price of oil, gas and and coal from
finite resources
But there's more to it than that. The report
quotes UN estimates that $250 billion a year is
spent globally on subsidies to conventional energy
industries -- and that could be saved if the
subsidies were scrapped.
Is it not high time to scrap all
subsidies for "conventional" energy? Would we even
need subsidies for renewables if the playing field
were levelled?
