India Draft Plan Reveals $21 Trillion Net-Zero Investment Need (financialpost.com) 22
India will need as much as $21 trillion to achieve its climate goals and lift its population out of poverty, according to a draft government plan seen by Bloomberg. From the report: The estimate offers a first glimpse of how the country intends to live up to its target of net zero emissions by 2070. The updated scenario implies hitting peak emissions in 2045, which is a decade earlier than the current trajectory.
India is already being severely battered by the fallout of climate change, as deadly floods and heat waves become more destructive each year. But the need to mitigate the emissions that feed climate change has historically been at odds with India's priorities of economic growth and energy security, with the latter still mostly provided through coal. The new plan shows India will seek to achieve climate and economic development goals simultaneously, with low-carbon options envisaged for much of its yet-to-be-built residential and industrial infrastructure.
India is already being severely battered by the fallout of climate change, as deadly floods and heat waves become more destructive each year. But the need to mitigate the emissions that feed climate change has historically been at odds with India's priorities of economic growth and energy security, with the latter still mostly provided through coal. The new plan shows India will seek to achieve climate and economic development goals simultaneously, with low-carbon options envisaged for much of its yet-to-be-built residential and industrial infrastructure.
Cost of Net-Zero vs Cost of fossils and disasters (Score:2)
Often these types of analysis focus on only the costs of investing in renewables and ignore the financial benefits of the investment.
There are solid benefits to eliminating fossil fuels (cost of the fuel, climate disasters, pollution damaging health, etc.).
In addition, providing access to lowest cost renewable non-polluting energy has benefits to everyone by improving the quality of life.
Their plan also includes unproven high cost nuclear which should be a non-starter.
They should instead rely on proven low
Re: (Score:2)
Their plan also includes unproven high cost nuclear which should be a non-starter.
Throwing tools out of the toolbox is why you are failing so bad. They be wise to emulate China, not the west.
Re: (Score:2)
If Aircela can actually deliver their machine for 20k$ and maintenance costs per year aren't more than a couple percent of that, high suntime nations like India really don't need much else.
The combined cost of PV/battery/Aircela/power-plants needed for an Indian Net Zero transition wouldn't even come to 2 Trillion. Most of the cost would be in electrification of the rest of the economy so you can just use the synthetic fuel for backup and impossible to electrify uses (aviation/shipping).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China's per-capita emissions are 3.5x higher than India's. I really do not want India to emulate China on this!
Re: (Score:3)
China's per-capita emissions are 3.5x higher than India's. I really do not want India to emulate China on this!
China's per-capita GDP is about 5x higher too. Poor people are not going to stay poor forever.
Re: (Score:1)
Often these types of analysis focus on only the costs of investing in renewables and ignore the financial benefits of the investment.
I don't know the entire plan since it is behind a paywall but from the summary it seemed quite clear that they expected to get more out of this investment than they'd put in. The investment would reduce poverty, storm damage, and air pollution. That's all good, is it not?
Their plan also includes unproven high cost nuclear which should be a non-starter.
Maybe nuclear energy would cost less if they worked on it more. If we gave up on solar PV technology in the 1970s because of the cost then where would we be today? As it is now nuclear fission is the lowest CO2 emitting energy we have,
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe nuclear energy would cost less if they worked on it more.
Seriously?
"We have been working on it for over 75 years, just give us a bit more money and I swear it will finally be as cheap as promised!"
Re: (Score:2)
How many new civil nuclear power reactors were built in the USA since Chernobyl scared off investors? Three? Maybe I missed a few and it's more like a half dozen. Even then one of those was at Watts Bar where construction started in 1973, had construction stop for decades, then picked up again to be brought online in 2016. How much new development in technology came from that? Maybe they learned a few things that could be helpful to refurbish that will be getting to 60 years old soon.
Watts Bar is clai
Re: (Score:2)
This fantasy that if we just streamlined production by mass producing reactors is ridiculous. If you look at what the specific problems and costs were, it's obvious that you aren't going to make nuclear cheap that way.
Re: (Score:1)
This fantasy that if we just streamlined production by mass producing reactors is ridiculous.
Right, because mass production never brought down costs before. But no, that's not right, what we see from history is mass production rarely failing to bring down costs.
If you look at what the specific problems and costs were, it's obvious that you aren't going to make nuclear cheap that way.
I guess we will find out in a few years. UK plans to keep going on new nuclear power plants. They will build a few near copies of Hinkley Point C around the country. Then we have plans for new nuclear in Canada, USA, France, possibly Germany, likely Poland, Japan, South Korea, perhaps Australia will get in on this too, and lets not forge
Re: (Score:2)
I would say they need to be more ambitious. They plan to hit peak emissions in 2045??? The world needs to be aiming for net zero by then, not peak.
$21 trillion is a lot of money, but that's what they plan to spend over decades, not all at once. To both develop and decarbonize the world's most populous country, it's not really that much. And it will pay for itself and then some.
I do want to be fair to them, though. India and China have similar populations, but China's emissions are 3.5 times higher. In
Global GDP (Score:2)
Global GDP is $105Tn. I daresay it would be higher is India were to lift its billion people out of poverty and empower them to be more productive.
Maybe the world should get together, figure out how to funnel $21Tn to India over the next 5 years as a loan/investment. Seems like that would have a good global payback if they can deliver on their plan (and that could be monitored in stages)
Re: (Score:1)
Birth control, whether it be the Pill, vasectomies, or tubal ligations. Make them free, the cost is way cheaper than supporting even more people.
I have two big problems with that. First is that nothing is free. Well, in this case birth control could be considered free in that all one needs to do to not have children is keep their pants on. No birth control is 100% so expect some "happy accidents" even with providing sterilization surgery. Even abstaining isn't 100% because there's at least one case in history of a woman giving birth to a baby boy without a man involved. But I digress. The people doing these surgeries will want to get paid. Th
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about a 45 year investment timeframe. That's not $105Tn, that's $4,500Tn assuming zero growth with is a silly assumption (unless we bomb each other back to the stone age).
But the bigger problem isn't investment dollars but rather execution. You can spend as much money as you want, if qualified people or other resources aren't available you still can't achieve anything. That's a concern in Europe now after Germany announced a $500bn future investment plan recently: neighbouring countries are wo
How does that break down? (Score:1)
And let's not forget that India is currently run by a Socialist. There's probably a much cheaper and more workable solution than what that administration has come up with.
Re:How does that break down? (Score:4, Informative)
And let's not forget that India is currently run by a Socialist.
You could not be more wrong. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
AI data centers have entered the chat! (Score:2)
Does not look like they will make it (Score:2)
That is way too late.