It is unfortunate that cultures do not put more emphasis on the value of a technology for the purposes of creating a better world, as opposed to cost. Traditionally, advancements have existed for some time before being widely adopted, generally because they are cost prohibitive during the initial stages of development. When something is new, it may receive attention from small groups with vested interests in that area, but will not receive the mass rollouts that would be necessary to create a self-fulfilling situation of ongoing advancement. In the initial stages of development of almost anything, the initial group of those interested is willing to pay higher costs simply because they want to use that technology, even if it is available in a different form at a lower price. Only once costs have been driven down through general ”adaptations over time” does that technology begin to become more available to the wider audiences that will then supply additional research and development through their purchases. This is the case with green energy technology, which has existed as an alternative to fossil fuels for many years but has yet to receive widespread adoption in many areas of the world, even though it is known to be superior in most respects. The energy production models are chosen by the companies in control of consumer energy distribution, and they will nearly always choose the methods that have the lowest associated cost. Because they are “for-profit” businesses, they need to weigh the costs of production of the product against the environmental impact, then choose the production model based upon what the consumers are willing to pay. Profits are always considered before environmental impact in private businesses.
The green energy markets exist as tested and verified alternatives to fossil fuel production of the same product. Green energy models have had a higher cost of production in the past because of the cheap availability of fossil fuels, and the need for higher levels of technology to produce the energy that is purchased by consumers. The argument has traditionally been that since there is no pollution created, the method of choice should be green and consumers should be willing to pay a premium for it. Consumer support will generally go the opposite direction if there is not perceptible negative impact in the current time, essentially making the rollout of more expensive but cleaner products difficult because the public is unwilling to pay for them. People are willing to accept a certain amount of damage in order to save money, and as long as they cannot readily perceive that damage they will support the cheaper methods. This is why mass adoption of green technologies has taken so long, because the methods had to exist in working models for lengthy periods of time, evolving and streamlining on their own, to the point of finally representing the cheaper production method. Once the public can see that they will not only have a cleaner environment but will also pay less per month, their support shifts to the alternatives. This has been accomplished through the integration of technologically advanced surge protection devices, which curb the expected damages to equipment in the field as a result of power surges. Lightning strikes to wind turbines are a common cause of damage to computerized components, and through the integration of new and better surge protection devices that damage is being minimized more every year. We are now to the point where the costs of damage on a quarterly basis are lower than the costs of fossil fuel purchase, effectively making wind and solar power cheaper to produce. From the unlikely source of surge protection comes the evolution to an industry that will keep the world functioning, only without the pollution of the past.
