In 20-25 years, we’ve pretty much gone all the way green. There’s no carbon emissions 25 years from now. So, we’re looking at, on the X axis we’ve got the year from 1880 to present, and on the y-axis, we have the cost that we’re putting in some standardized units in terms of the cost of generating a megawatt hour of useful energy. And what you can see is coal and oil, those have been going for 140 years, and the costs bounce around a little bit, but the trend is remarkably flat. In fact, from a statistical point of view, you can’t prove it isn’t flat.
Our first scenario, which we call Fast Transition, is a scenario where we just assume we stay on those same trajectories. If wind, solar photovoltaics, batteries, and green hydrogen, if those things just stay on their trajectories for another 10 years, and then they start to flatten out because by then they become dominant in the energy system, at that point, our forecast suggests that because those costs will continue to come down with high probability if we continue deploying, then we should see energy get cheaper than it’s ever been historically.
The slow transition, it’s like the fast transition, but slower, which means that natural gas hangs around for a lot longer. What it also means is that the costs don’t come down as quickly because we aren’t pushing things, as they would say, down their learning curve. We’ve even done one where we assume everything just stays in the proportions it is now, so if we’re generating 2 percent of our energy with solar energy we lock that in.
So these are in order of how expensive they are. We expect we’ll save on the order of $25 trillion by doing the Fast Transition over No Transition, and the Slow Transition comes out somewhere in between.