> Every year you wait, the more expensive it becomes to do stuff like this.
It seems like the opposite is true: Every year you wait, the upfront and recurring costs drop.
Unless you have a serious near-term problem arising from the status quo (e.g. stagnant air filled with coal exhaust), and that problem can be solved altogether at a tolerable cost, there is no advantage to moving first or early.
Not necessarily, if during the time you wait the energy companies build more coal power stations. Which they planned to do, despite it being obvious how bad at an idea that was.
Happened over the last years often in cooperation with cities, which now have the problem of being stuck with polluting coal power stations that are not even profitable anymore. Contracts are often laid out in a manner that the cities have to shoulder the load. My sympathy is limited, they could have listened to the advocates of green energy who predicted that.
Anyway, deconstructing those new coal power stations and trying to help the affected cities and regions would raise the price of moving to green energy later. I'm not sure that would be completely offset by the lower prices and technological improvements one can expect to see each year.
