[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If the renewable alternates are cheaper, and feasible to source and run, sure, why not? If they aren't, I doubt they are adopted at scale. Either way, my guess is that these decision will be made with a heavy bias towards cost, stability, and practically (and a little capitalist greed)... not environmental goals. As of right now though, even rich western societies are having trouble demonstrating a stable transition to renewables, so I have my doubts about developing countries going all in, especially with their relative infrastructure deficits. Poor countries, and their leaders, tend not to have the luxury of making decisions based on soft wants and future targets. Their needs tend to be more immediate.

I imagine the order of priority for anyone in charge of energy policy in a developing country probably goes something like this:
Is it cheap?
Is it available?
Is the supply reliable/friendly?
Does it scale/transport?
Is it energy-dense?
Do we have the infrastructure?
Can we maintain the infrastructure?
What's our backup?
What's my kickback?
.
.
.
How will this affect the arctic ice shelf in 20 years?

Interview with an African leader from the linked article:

”How do I justify to voters taking away subsidies, school funding and health care to build a waste-processing plant or a big sea wall?” asks a finance minister. “In 20 years of course it will be useful, but it is the cost now that is concerning.” He reckons that the cost of building a school in his capital city has doubled in the past decade, because of the need to make facilities green and resilient. “What about when we have to choose between hospitals treating lung disease and swapping to electric buses?”