Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

In this article

It’s going to take $2.5 trillion in spending over the next decade to get the U.S. on a path to a carbon-free economy, but the transition will help to pay for itself, Princeton University researchers say.

Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 would require expanding renewable-energy systems, building more efficient homes and putting 50 million electric cars on the road, according to a report released Tuesday.

Generating power from free fuel such as wind and solar while dramatically reducing fossil fuel consumption could keep energy costs below 6% of gross domestic product through 2050 — much lower than historical levels. That’s in part because oil-price volatility is a major factor determining how much U.S. households and businesses pay for their energy system.

Eliminating coal use by 2030 and cutting oil and gas use 65-100% by 2050 would result in job losses, but those would be more than offset by new opportunities, especially in construction and installing wind and solar power. Jenkins estimates there would be 500,000 to 1 million net additional jobs by 2030. Energy-related employment could constitute 4.5% of the U.S. workforce by 2050, from 1.5% now.

Getting to net-zero would require major infrastructure investment, including:

  • Quadrupling wind and solar capacity in the U.S. to 600 gigawatts, enough to supply about half of the country’s electricity
  • Boosting power transmission capacity by 60%
  • Doubling the share of residential heating supplied by heat pumps and tripling the share in commercial buildings
  • Putting 50 million electric cars on the road and building at least 3 million charging stations

One major goal of the report is to encourage local communities to come to terms with decisions they may have to make over the next few years. The areas from the Great Plains south to Texas remain a huge potential source of wind power, but tapping that would require new transmission lines and would likely generate public debate about land use.

Source: Read Full Article