Replacing fossil fuels would be too costly and time-consuming

The argument

Even if fossil fuels are as problematic as they seem, phasing them out will not only be time-consuming, but detrimental within the realm of cost. To generate the same amount of electricity we currently utilize, we would need to produce even more energy to capture that same amount of power. That extra energy is needed because the type of energy that renewable resources produce has a lower energy density than that of fossil fuels. In essence, one would need to make up for what energy is lost when making the switch to renewable energy, which in turn makes it more costly. In addition to requiring more energy generation, renewable energy will also require the use of more materials than fossil fuel energy would. A study conducted by Austrian researcher Edgar Hertwich found that solar photovoltaics (PV) can require 10 to 40 times more copper per megawatt-hour than fossil fuel-fired plants. More materials would generally lead to large purchase orders, and the larger they are, the more expensive they will be. Fossil fuels are also in abundance, contrary to the idea that we can easily run out of fossil fuels since they are non-renewable. Advancing technology is making possible the discovery of new sources of non-renewable energy, for example, the somewhat recent ability for us to tap into oil shales and methane hydrates. It would not make much sense to let such an energy-rich resource go to waste, especially if it is the cheaper of the two options (the other being renewable energy resources). Not to mention how difficult it would be to convert an entire country's electrical system and to make sure that everything works as it should without fail.

Premises

Counter-arguments

On the other hand, phasing out fossil fuels might not be as costly as previously thought. Recent speculations concerning the Boston Consulting Group, a consulting firm, suggests that the future of oil consumption is getting harder to predict in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. This outlook on the oil industry alludes to a lowered sense of faith in the industry, especially as most companies around the world are already working on reducing emissions. Thus, if the oil industry is on the road to failing, then it stands to reason that there will be an incentive to start preparing for phasing fossil fuels like oil out of energy generation as it would be too costly to continue supporting the venture. In a similar vein, a study suggests that around 75% of coal production is more expensive than renewables. This expense stems from rising maintenance costs, including the addition of pollution controls which prevent pollutants from affecting the environment at large. Overall, the coal industry is being left behind by the wind and solar industries since their technologies have seen improvement, making them less costly than their coal counterparts.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise misapplies energy density. Density measures energy per unit of mass or volume, which matters for storing and transporting fuel; it does not entail that a renewable system must generate extra electricity to deliver the same output. The relevant comparison runs the other way — a thermal plant discards roughly 55 to 65 per cent of its fuel energy as waste heat, while wind and solar deliver electricity directly, so the same demand is met with less primary energy, not more. [Rejecting P2] Material intensity per megawatt-hour is real and is a genuine constraint on mining and supply chains, but it is not a cost comparison. Fossil generation consumes fuel continuously for decades, while the materials in a wind or solar installation are a one-off input increasingly recovered at end of life — and the price data settle the point the premise is arguing: utility-scale solar and onshore wind are now the cheapest sources of new generation in most markets, and a large share of existing coal capacity costs more to run than new renewables cost to build. [Rejecting P3] Abundance is not cheapness, and the premise omits what a comparison of expense requires: the cost of continuing, in damage, health effects and adaptation, and the risk of assets stranded as demand shifts. The conclusion also does not follow from difficulty — that a transition is slow and hard argues for beginning it early, not for declining to undertake it.