Frankly, stopping all investments in fossil fuel infrastructure is unrealistic. It will never happen.
Clearly the word 'all' there is problematic. But the current thinking is that people don't want to invest their money in projects that won't pay back. A lot of FF infrastructure like coal mines and coal power plants used to look like it they were totally safe, low risk, high return investments. Build a plant, start a utility and sell stock to a bunch of grannies and pay a good dividend for 30 years.
Now that the costs of RE have fallen so far, and the technology has improved, the major costs (to society, not the RE owner) are in displacement. The coal industry is failing. Some coal plants are being scrapped before the end of their design life, and some stock holders are seeing a cost. People who have spent their lives in the industry are losing their jobs.
So, a key strategy going forward is to minimize such problems by all of us and companies being forward looking....not sinking billions into projects that will not pay back before they need to be scrapped for environmental reasons (not necessarily regulation either...this could manifest trough market forces as people demand cleaner electricity, products without embodied fossil energy, etc.).
Conservation is the answer before large piles of taxpayer dollars should be dropped on solar. If the tax credits for solar was applied to insulation you would see the amount of energy used to heat and cool homes plummet. Throw something like green roofs into the picture and waste water runoff is controlled, air is cleaned, cities are naturally cooled, and roofs start lasting 50+years.
IMO this thinking is a little out of date. We can all do things to reduce fossil energy use, and they all have a cost per unit of energy (or CO2) saved. Of course we should do them in order of cost, low hanging fruit first. Until recently, PV was at the top of the tree. Now it isn't.
Example: I had some pros retrofit my 1960 house (after I had done what I could DIY). The net effect is they saved me about 3500 kWh per year on HVAC, or $500/yr at current prices. The same program offered me a 0% 10 year loan to pay for it (US DOE pays the interest). Project cost was $5k. Simple payback is 10 years. I would not have done it without the 0% loan, because of the lousy payback. Of course, my house is a lot more comfortable too, I guess I got the comfort 'for free'.
From others experiences here, it looks like solar PV can have a similar or better payback in many markets. Why is it not a better investment?
And realistically, both conservation and PV pay a reasonable ROI...we will want to do BOTH.
I have neighbors who looked at green rooves, and all of them abandoned it after looking at costs versus savings. Seems to be a fad.
Last edited: