It’s just simple arithmetic, however you want to subsidize or socialize the cost, the fact is that renewables have higher cost per MW.

Every dollar spent on higher energy costs is a dollar not spent in other things. This will impact growth.

Sure, but aren't fossil fuels also subsidized? Haven't the costs been reduced due to the economies of scale and time? Are the environmental downsides not considered part of the cost?

I get it, renewables are still more expensive, but are they really doomed to trap more people in poverty?

Couldn't one argue that the unbalanced economic systems are the primary thing that traps people in poverty and the cost of energy is simply a minor factor? There are certainly countries with low energy costs and high poverty rates.

Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized. Most places in the world allow the fossil fuel industry to write-off their pollution costs, and many other places go further even than that.

Moreover, it's disingenuous of the OP to suggest that renewables lead to "millions trapped in poverty" while fossil fuels merely result in "climate change" (as though climate change doesn't imply billions trapped in poverty).

> Sure, but aren't fossil fuels also subsidized?

Yes, that has to do nothing with my point.

> Haven't the costs been reduced due to the economies of scale and time?

That's a sunken cost fallacy. What we have already spent doesn't matter. What matters is what we choose today, and what consequences does it bring.

> Are the environmental downsides not considered part of the cost?

Off course, that's the main issue. Environmental costs are gigantic, but they are also far into the future.

> renewables are still more expensive, but are they really doomed to trap more people in poverty?

Anything that hampers growth will have massive consequences on the long run. Higher energy prices will heavily reduce growth, even if we assume that there's margin for efficiency to be gained from economies of scale and technology improvements.

> Couldn't one argue that the unbalanced economic systems are the primary thing that traps people in poverty and the cost of energy is simply a minor factor?

You could argue the first one if you'd like, I won't because it would be getting off topic. As for the second, the cost of energy is a massive factor into the economy, because energy underpins anything we do. The only real solution we've found to poverty is growth. The worlds wealth follows an exponential, tampering with the base has serious implications when you are looking at climatic timescales.

> There are certainly countries with low energy costs and high poverty rates.

Let me try to explain in another way. We are at a crossroads. Whatever our past is, our current situation, it's no matter now, that's behind us. We can choose path A, or path B.

Path A (continue to use natural gas) keeps us going. We know that at some point we'll have to deal with the consequences of climate change, but we can modulate our use, and take our time. We are making the future costs higher, there's no doubt about that, but we might be better equipped to switch to renewables in 40 years. There's no reason to rush the switch.

Path B (completely switching to renewables now). This will limit our growth for sure. It will also require us to sort out now how best to handle the transition, because rising prices with our current system will leave a lot of people without heating in the winter, or unable to use appliances like dishwashers (I'm in Spain, our energy cost has been rising constantly, we are seeing this happening). We will need to change a lot in very short time. Our future climate costs will be lower.

In some sense, by choosing path A, we are betting that we will find better solutions at some point in the future. If we choose path B but if some new amazing renewable technology appears in say, 75 years, we've made a huge mistake.

Thanks for explaining it, this makes a lot more sense. But isn't reality more like... option C? Which is work towards B while still relying on A to fill the gaps?

Does moving towards B also produce growth because it's a process that will take decades?

Only because profits are privatized while costs and tail risks are largely socialized, for the fossil fuel industry. If they paid their environmental impact costs, no driller or coal miner could operate profitably.

>It’s just simple arithmetic, however you want to subsidize or socialize the cost, the fact is that renewables have higher cost per MW.

All the more reason for a carbon price. If the cost from renewables is genuinely more expensive than climate destabilization, then make the price explicit and the market will sort the practical from the pointless.

If there's one thing markets are good at, it's choosing the cheaper option. But they need a price signal to work on in the first place.

>are renewables more likely to increase wealth gaps than other fuels?

Given that renewable generation solutions can be purchased by a much larger percentage of the world population than nonrenewable ones, they probably do a lot to decrease wealth gaps. Since they require more energy invested per energy paid back though, it's probably accurate to suppose that the total wealth in the system would be reduced by such a trend.

Renewables as currently implemented have significant effective capacity issues - wind not blowing, or sun not shining, or whatever - and overbuilding them still won’t solve that.

Storage is currently very expensive, and this is not likely to meaningfully (as in decrease by an order of magnitude or more in cost) change anytime soon.

That means that you need to buy and maintain more equipment for the same kwh at the plug than you would with a typical power plant. Fossil Fuels are incredibly energy dense and really cheap to extract, even with the nutty new technologies required in many places.