renewable energy vs fossil fuels essay

Essay Service Examples Environment Fossil Fuels

Fossil Fuels vs Renewable Energy Essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Fossil Fuels

There are several environmental effects associated with non-renewable mineral resources, and all...

• Conservation
• Renewable Energy

Did you know that if humans consume fossil fuel at the current rate, in the next 42years coal...

• Global Warming

Global warming is a contemporary serious threat to our planet for the combustion of oil, coal, and...

• Air Pollution
• Environmental Pollution

Environmental pollution it is the entrance of any unwanted material into the natural environment,...

• Carbon Dioxide
• Climate Change

Climate change is a growing problem that affects thousands of lives through the form of high...

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may...

Fossil fuels are a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the...

century, their reliance on oil, natural gas, and nuclear power grew ̈ (Blumsack). The United...

The Earth. It is a home to thousands if not millions of different species of all kinds of...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

We use cookies to analyse how visitors use our website and to help us provide the best possible experience for users. View our Cookie Policy . ( I accept )

Posted on December, 05 2023

• What is COP28 and does it matter?
• Climate change: Who should foot the bill?
• Why nature is climate's secret ally
• COP28: What is the global stocktake?
• WWF at COP28: Find out more

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• What is solar energy?
• How is solar energy collected?

renewable energy

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• U.S. Energy Information Administration - Energy Kids - Energy Sources - Renewable
• Natural Resources Defense Council - Renewable Energy: The Clean Facts
• Energy.gov - Renewable Energy
• United Nations - What is renewable energy?
• World Nuclear Association - Renewable Energy and Electricity
• alternative energy - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• alternative energy - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)

Recent News

renewable energy , usable energy derived from replenishable sources such as the Sun ( solar energy ), wind ( wind power ), rivers ( hydroelectric power ), hot springs ( geothermal energy ), tides ( tidal power ), and biomass ( biofuels ).

At the beginning of the 21st century, about 80 percent of the world’s energy supply was derived from fossil fuels such as coal , petroleum , and natural gas . Fossil fuels are finite resources; most estimates suggest that the proven reserves of oil are large enough to meet global demand at least until the middle of the 21st century. Fossil fuel combustion has a number of negative environmental consequences. Fossil-fueled power plants emit air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide , particulate matter , nitrogen oxides, and toxic chemicals (heavy metals: mercury , chromium , and arsenic ), and mobile sources, such as fossil-fueled vehicles, emit nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide , and particulate matter. Exposure to these pollutants can cause heart disease , asthma , and other human health problems. In addition, emissions from fossil fuel combustion are responsible for acid rain , which has led to the acidification of many lakes and consequent damage to aquatic life, leaf damage in many forests, and the production of smog in or near many urban areas. Furthermore, the burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), one of the main greenhouse gases that cause global warming .

In contrast, renewable energy sources accounted for nearly 20 percent of global energy consumption at the beginning of the 21st century, largely from traditional uses of biomass such as wood for heating and cooking . By 2015 about 16 percent of the world’s total electricity came from large hydroelectric power plants, whereas other types of renewable energy (such as solar, wind, and geothermal) accounted for 6 percent of total electricity generation. Some energy analysts consider nuclear power to be a form of renewable energy because of its low carbon emissions; nuclear power generated 10.6 percent of the world’s electricity in 2015.

Growth in wind power exceeded 20 percent and photovoltaics grew at 30 percent annually in the 1990s, and renewable energy technologies continued to expand throughout the early 21st century. Between 2001 and 2017 world total installed wind power capacity increased by a factor of 22, growing from 23,900 to 539,581 megawatts. Photovoltaic capacity also expanded, increasing by 50 percent in 2016 alone. The European Union (EU), which produced an estimated 6.38 percent of its energy from renewable sources in 2005, adopted a goal in 2007 to raise that figure to 20 percent by 2020. By 2016 some 17 percent of the EU’s energy came from renewable sources. The goal also included plans to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 percent and to ensure that 10 percent of all fuel consumption comes from biofuels . The EU was well on its way to achieving those targets by 2017. Between 1990 and 2016 the countries of the EU reduced carbon emissions by 23 percent and increased biofuel production to 5.5 percent of all fuels consumed in the region. In the United States numerous states have responded to concerns over climate change and reliance on imported fossil fuels by setting goals to increase renewable energy over time. For example, California required its major utility companies to produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010, and by the end of that year California utilities were within 1 percent of the goal. In 2008 California increased this requirement to 33 percent by 2020, and in 2017 the state further increased its renewable-use target to 50 percent by 2030.

Search the United Nations

• What Is Climate Change
• Myth Busters
• Renewable Energy
• Finance & Justice
• Initiatives
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Paris Agreement
• Climate Ambition Summit 2023
• Climate Conferences
• Press Material
• Communications Tips

Renewable energy – powering a safer future

Energy is at the heart of the climate challenge – and key to the solution.

A large chunk of the greenhouse gases that blanket the Earth and trap the sun’s heat are generated through energy production, by burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and heat.

Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, are by far the largest contributor to global climate change , accounting for over 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions.

The science is clear: to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, emissions need to be reduced by almost half by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050.

To achieve this, we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels and invest in alternative sources of energy that are clean, accessible, affordable, sustainable, and reliable.

Renewable energy sources – which are available in abundance all around us, provided by the sun, wind, water, waste, and heat from the Earth – are replenished by nature and emit little to no greenhouse gases or pollutants into the air.

Fossil fuels still account for more than 80 percent of global energy production , but cleaner sources of energy are gaining ground. About 29 percent of electricity currently comes from renewable sources.

Here are five reasons why accelerating the transition to clean energy is the pathway to a healthy, livable planet today and for generations to come.

1. Renewable energy sources are all around us

About 80 percent of the global population lives in countries that are net-importers of fossil fuels -- that’s about 6 billion people who are dependent on fossil fuels from other countries, which makes them vulnerable to geopolitical shocks and crises.

In contrast, renewable energy sources are available in all countries, and their potential is yet to be fully harnessed. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that 90 percent of the world’s electricity can and should come from renewable energy by 2050.

Renewables offer a way out of import dependency, allowing countries to diversify their economies and protect them from the unpredictable price swings of fossil fuels, while driving inclusive economic growth, new jobs, and poverty alleviation.

2. Renewable energy is cheaper

Renewable energy actually is the cheapest power option in most parts of the world today. Prices for renewable energy technologies are dropping rapidly. The cost of electricity from solar power fell by 85 percent between 2010 and 2020. Costs of onshore and offshore wind energy fell by 56 percent and 48 percent respectively.

Falling prices make renewable energy more attractive all around – including to low- and middle-income countries, where most of the additional demand for new electricity will come from. With falling costs, there is a real opportunity for much of the new power supply over the coming years to be provided by low-carbon sources.

Cheap electricity from renewable sources could provide 65 percent of the world’s total electricity supply by 2030. It could decarbonize 90 percent of the power sector by 2050, massively cutting carbon emissions and helping to mitigate climate change.

Although solar and wind power costs are expected to remain higher in 2022 and 2023 then pre-pandemic levels due to general elevated commodity and freight prices, their competitiveness actually improves due to much sharper increases in gas and coal prices, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).

3. Renewable energy is healthier

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 99 percent of people in the world breathe air that exceeds air quality limits and threatens their health, and more than 13 million deaths around the world each year are due to avoidable environmental causes, including air pollution.

The unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide originate mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. In 2018, air pollution from fossil fuels caused $2.9 trillion in health and economic costs , about $8 billion a day.

Switching to clean sources of energy, such as wind and solar, thus helps address not only climate change but also air pollution and health.

4. Renewable energy creates jobs

Every dollar of investment in renewables creates three times more jobs than in the fossil fuel industry. The IEA estimates that the transition towards net-zero emissions will lead to an overall increase in energy sector jobs : while about 5 million jobs in fossil fuel production could be lost by 2030, an estimated 14 million new jobs would be created in clean energy, resulting in a net gain of 9 million jobs.

In addition, energy-related industries would require a further 16 million workers, for instance to take on new roles in manufacturing of electric vehicles and hyper-efficient appliances or in innovative technologies such as hydrogen. This means that a total of more than 30 million jobs could be created in clean energy, efficiency, and low-emissions technologies by 2030.

Ensuring a just transition , placing the needs and rights of people at the heart of the energy transition, will be paramount to make sure no one is left behind.

5. Renewable energy makes economic sense

About $7 trillion was spent on subsidizing the fossil fuel industry in 2022, including through explicit subsidies, tax breaks, and health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels.

In comparison, about $4.5 trillion a year needs to be invested in renewable energy until 2030 – including investments in technology and infrastructure – to allow us to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The upfront cost can be daunting for many countries with limited resources, and many will need financial and technical support to make the transition. But investments in renewable energy will pay off. The reduction of pollution and climate impacts alone could save the world up to $4.2 trillion per year by 2030.

Moreover, efficient, reliable renewable technologies can create a system less prone to market shocks and improve resilience and energy security by diversifying power supply options.

Learn more about how many communities and countries are realizing the economic, societal, and environmental benefits of renewable energy.

Will developing countries benefit from the renewables boom? Learn more here .

What is renewable energy?

Derived from natural resources that are abundant and continuously replenished, renewable energy is key to a safer, cleaner, and sustainable world. Explore common sources of renewable energy here.

Why invest in renewable energy?

Learn more about the differences between fossil fuels and renewables, the benefits of renewable energy, and how we can act now.

Five ways to jump-start the renewable energy transition now

UN Secretary-General outlines five critical actions the world needs to prioritize now to speed up the global shift to renewable energy.

What is net zero? Why is it important? Our net-zero page explains why we need steep emissions cuts now and what efforts are underway.

• What is climate change?

Our climate 101 offers a quick take on the how and why of climate change. Read more.

How will the world foot the bill? We explain the issues and the value of financing climate action.

Climate issues

Learn more about how climate change impacts are felt across different sectors and ecosystems.

It’s time to stop burning our planet, and start investing in the abundant renewable energy all around us." ANTÓNIO GUTERRES , United Nations Secretary-General

Facts and figures

• Causes and effects
• Myth busters

Cutting emissions

• Explaining net zero
• High-level expert group on net zero
• Checklists for credibility of net-zero pledges
• Greenwashing
• What you can do

Clean energy

• Renewable energy – key to a safer future
• What is renewable energy
• Five ways to speed up the energy transition
• Why invest in renewable energy
• Clean energy stories
• A just transition

Adapting to climate change

• Climate adaptation
• Early warnings for all
• Youth voices

Financing climate action

• Finance and justice
• Loss and damage
• $100 billion commitment
• Why finance climate action
• Biodiversity
• Human Security

International cooperation

• What are Nationally Determined Contributions
• Acceleration Agenda
• Climate Ambition Summit
• Climate conferences (COPs)
• Youth Advisory Group
• Action initiatives
• Secretary-General’s speeches
• Press material
• Fact sheets
• Communications tips

• ENVIRONMENT

Renewable energy, explained

Solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, and geothermal power can provide energy without the planet-warming effects of fossil fuels.

In any discussion about climate change , renewable energy usually tops the list of changes the world can implement to stave off the worst effects of rising temperatures. That's because renewable energy sources such as solar and wind don't emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming .

Clean energy has far more to recommend it than just being "green." The growing sector creates jobs , makes electric grids more resilient, expands energy access in developing countries, and helps lower energy bills. All of those factors have contributed to a renewable energy renaissance in recent years, with wind and solar setting new records for electricity generation .

For the past 150 years or so, humans have relied heavily on coal, oil, and other fossil fuels to power everything from light bulbs to cars to factories. Fossil fuels are embedded in nearly everything we do, and as a result, the greenhouse gases released from the burning of those fuels have reached historically high levels .

As greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape into space, average temperatures on the surface are rising . Global warming is one symptom of climate change, the term scientists now prefer to describe the complex shifts affecting our planet’s weather and climate systems. Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas , and a range of other impacts .

Of course, renewables—like any source of energy—have their own trade-offs and associated debates. One of them centers on the definition of renewable energy. Strictly speaking, renewable energy is just what you might think: perpetually available, or as the U.S. Energy Information Administration puts it, " virtually inexhaustible ." But "renewable" doesn't necessarily mean sustainable, as opponents of corn-based ethanol or large hydropower dams often argue. It also doesn't encompass other low- or zero-emissions resources that have their own advocates, including energy efficiency and nuclear power.

Types of renewable energy sources

Hydropower: For centuries, people have harnessed the energy of river currents, using dams to control water flow. Hydropower is the world's biggest source of renewable energy by far, with China, Brazil, Canada, the U.S., and Russia the leading hydropower producers . While hydropower is theoretically a clean energy source replenished by rain and snow, it also has several drawbacks.

Large dams can disrupt river ecosystems and surrounding communities , harming wildlife and displacing residents. Hydropower generation is vulnerable to silt buildup, which can compromise capacity and harm equipment. Drought can also cause problems. In the western U.S., carbon dioxide emissions over a 15-year period were 100 megatons higher than they normally would have been, according to a 2018 study , as utilities turned to coal and gas to replace hydropower lost to drought. Even hydropower at full capacity bears its own emissions problems, as decaying organic material in reservoirs releases methane.

Dams aren't the only way to use water for power: Tidal and wave energy projects around the world aim to capture the ocean's natural rhythms. Marine energy projects currently generate an estimated 500 megawatts of power —less than one percent of all renewables—but the potential is far greater. Programs like Scotland’s Saltire Prize have encouraged innovation in this area.

Wind: Harnessing the wind as a source of energy started more than 7,000 years ago . Now, electricity-generating wind turbines are proliferating around the globe, and China, the U.S., and Germany are the leading wind energy producers. From 2001 to 2017 , cumulative wind capacity around the world increased to more than 539,000 megawatts from 23,900 mw—more than 22 fold.

Some people may object to how wind turbines look on the horizon and to how they sound, but wind energy, whose prices are declining , is proving too valuable a resource to deny. While most wind power comes from onshore turbines, offshore projects are appearing too, with the most in the U.K. and Germany. The first U.S. offshore wind farm opened in 2016 in Rhode Island, and other offshore projects are gaining momentum . Another problem with wind turbines is that they’re a danger for birds and bats, killing hundreds of thousands annually , not as many as from glass collisions and other threats like habitat loss and invasive species, but enough that engineers are working on solutions to make them safer for flying wildlife.

You May Also Like

Can energy harnessed from Earth’s interior help power the world?

How the historic climate bill will dramatically reduce U.S. emissions

We took the Great American Road Trip—in electric cars

Solar: From home rooftops to utility-scale farms, solar power is reshaping energy markets around the world. In the decade from 2007 and 2017 the world's total installed energy capacity from photovoltaic panels increased a whopping 4,300 percent .

In addition to solar panels, which convert the sun's light to electricity, concentrating solar power (CSP) plants use mirrors to concentrate the sun's heat, deriving thermal energy instead. China, Japan, and the U.S. are leading the solar transformation, but solar still has a long way to go, accounting for around two percent of the total electricity generated in the U.S. in 2017. Solar thermal energy is also being used worldwide for hot water, heating, and cooling.

Biomass: Biomass energy includes biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel , wood and wood waste, biogas from landfills, and municipal solid waste. Like solar power, biomass is a flexible energy source, able to fuel vehicles, heat buildings, and produce electricity. But biomass can raise thorny issues.

Critics of corn-based ethanol , for example, say it competes with the food market for corn and supports the same harmful agricultural practices that have led to toxic algae blooms and other environmental hazards. Similarly, debates have erupted over whether it's a good idea to ship wood pellets from U.S. forests over to Europe so that it can be burned for electricity. Meanwhile, scientists and companies are working on ways to more efficiently convert corn stover , wastewater sludge , and other biomass sources into energy, aiming to extract value from material that would otherwise go to waste.

Geothermal: Used for thousands of years in some countries for cooking and heating, geothermal energy is derived from the Earth’s internal heat . On a large scale, underground reservoirs of steam and hot water can be tapped through wells that can go a mile deep or more to generate electricity. On a smaller scale, some buildings have geothermal heat pumps that use temperature differences several feet below ground for heating and cooling. Unlike solar and wind energy, geothermal energy is always available, but it has side effects that need to be managed, such as the rotten egg smell that can accompany released hydrogen sulfide.

Ways to boost renewable energy

Cities, states, and federal governments around the world are instituting policies aimed at increasing renewable energy. At least 29 U.S. states have set renewable portfolio standards —policies that mandate a certain percentage of energy from renewable sources, More than 100 cities worldwide now boast at least 70 percent renewable energy, and still others are making commitments to reach 100 percent . Other policies that could encourage renewable energy growth include carbon pricing, fuel economy standards, and building efficiency standards. Corporations are making a difference too, purchasing record amounts of renewable power in 2018.

Wonder whether your state could ever be powered by 100 percent renewables? No matter where you live, scientist Mark Jacobson believes it's possible. That vision is laid out here , and while his analysis is not without critics , it punctuates a reality with which the world must now reckon. Even without climate change, fossil fuels are a finite resource, and if we want our lease on the planet to be renewed, our energy will have to be renewable.

Related Topics

• SUSTAINABILITY
• RENEWABLE ENERGY
• GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
• SOLAR POWER
• HYDROELECTRIC POWER
• CLIMATE CHANGE

5 environmental victories from 2021 that offer hope

Activists fear a new threat to biodiversity—renewable energy

How the Ukraine war is accelerating Germany's renewable energy transition

3 ways COVID-19 is making us rethink energy and emissions

Let’s not waste this crucial moment: We need to stop abusing the planet

• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Insight and inspiration in turbulent times.

• All Latest Articles
• Environment
• Food & Water
• Featured Topics
• Editor’s Picks
• Get Started
• Online Course
• Holding the Fire
• What Could Possibly Go Right?
• About Resilience
• Fundamentals
• Submission Guidelines
• Commenting Guidelines
• All Articles
• Log in / Sign Up

Fossil fuels vs. renewables: the key argument that environmentalists are missing

By Kurt Cobb , originally published by ASPO-USA

January 23, 2012

Which of the following can we count on to act as a “bridge fuel” to a renewable energy economy?

• B. Natural Gas
• D. None of the above

The correct answer is: D. None of the above.

Mark Twain is reported to have said: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” What most environmentalists think they know for sure is that oil, coal and natural gas are all abundant-so abundant, in fact, that many environmentalists believe they are forced to make a Hobson’s choice of natural gas as a so-called “bridge fuel” to a renewable energy future.

Though natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than coal or oil when it is burned, it still contributes mightily to climate change. In fact, according to research by a Cornell University team , natural gas from shale, which will make up an increasing share of U.S. gas supplies, is worse than conventionally produced gas which is now declining. Because shale gas wells are drilled in a way that releases considerable volumes of unburned methane into the atmosphere, shale gas is probably also worse than coal.

Methane is about 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and it leaks into the environment over the lifecycle of natural gas from drilling through delivery. In addition, hydraulic fracturing or fracking in the country’s vast shale formations pollutes the air and surface waters surrounding drill sites and threatens the groundwater because the process uses toxic chemicals. It turns out, however, that what most environmentalists know about the future supply of natural gas and other fossil fuels is based more on industry hype than on actual data. And, that means that they are missing a key argument in their discussions about renewable energy, one that could be used to persuade those less concerned about pollution and climate change and more concerned about energy security: There is increasing evidence that no fossil fuel will continue to see its rate of production climb significantly in the decades ahead and so none of them is a viable “bridge fuel,” not natural gas, not oil, not coal. This means that global society must leap over fossil fuels and move directly to renewables as quickly as possible. In advanced economies this leap must be combined with a program of radical reductions in energy use, reductions which are achievable using known technologies and practices.

Okay, perhaps you are wondering about the data. Let’s discuss each fossil fuel separately:

The first thing you should know about oil is that worldwide production has been on a plateau since 2005 . This is despite record high prices and furious exploration and drilling efforts. There have been well-publicized finds here and there that may seem large. However, at the current worldwide rate of consumption, one billion barrels of oil lasts only 12 days. Thus, the multi-billion barrel finds announced in the last decade or so will have little impact on the longevity of world supplies.

Another key issue is one that oil companies do not want to emphasize: depletion. The worldwide average for production declines in existing oilfields has been estimated to be about 4 percent per year. That means that each year just to stay even, the industry must develop new oil production capacity equivalent to the current capacity of the North Sea, one of the world’s largest fields. To grow production, it must, of course, exceed this amount, and that hasn’t been happening.

When you mention these hard facts in polite company, you will undoubtedly be met with skepticism. But the data are available to the public from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) website . The agency is the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy and is widely considered the gold standard of energy information in the world.

Now, don’t be deceived by shifting definitions of oil. When the petroleum glut long predicted by the optimists failed to appear, they started lumping in ethanol, biodiesel and natural gas liquids with petroleum and calling them all “oil.” These other products are useful, but they are not as energy-rich, versatile or easily transported as oil. Our current infrastructure is heavily dependent on oil inputs with no real substitutes available in the quantities required.

You will also likely be met with protestations that we still have lots of oil: tar sands in Canada, heavy oil in Venezuela and even oil shale in the American West, primarily Colorado. Well, this represents the difficult-to-get oil. We extracted the easy stuff in the first 150 years of the oil age. And, while it is true that these resources and others like them represent an immense store of hydrocarbons, what matters is the rate at which we can produce them.

Because of the high-cost, capital-intensive nature of such production, the rate of production will be slow to ramp up and difficult to maintain. The hydrocarbons locked in the tar sands and the Orinoco oil belt in Venezuela aren’t what we call oil and must be heavily processed at high cost using enormous amounts of energy. As for the oil shale in the America West, the amount of commercially produced oil we are currently getting from that oil shale is zero. No one has figured out how to extract it profitably. Partly this is because oil shale contains no oil. Instead, it contains a hydrocarbon-rich waxy substance called kerogen which must be heavily processed to turn it into oil.

An analogy might be useful: If you inherit a million dollars with the stipulation that you can only take out $500 a month, you may be a millionaire, but you will never live like one. Increasingly, this is the situation we will find ourselves in when it comes to oil. The key issue is the rate of production, not the size of the resource. The hard-to-get oil resources are large, but they take a long time to develop and require strenuous, expensive and energy-intensive methods to extract. All this, when combined with the relentless depletion of existing fields, spells little or no growth in the worldwide rate of oil production in the coming years.

Natural Gas

By now you’ve been told so many times in television ads and news articles that we have a 100-year supply of natural gas in the United States that you assume it must be true. While the claim itself is suspect, even if we accept it, there is a very serious omission. The claim in its entirety reads: a 100-year supply of natural gas at current rates of consumption. If natural gas is to be used as a so-called “bridge fuel”-a fuel that will power society with the least environmental cost while we deploy nonpolluting, renewable energy-then its rate of production will have to grow considerably if we expect it to displace coal and oil.

Simple spreadsheet calculations will tell you what happens to such long-term supply claims under the pressure of a little exponential growth. At just 2 percent per year growth, the 100-year U.S. domestic natural gas supply is exhausted in 56 years. If we assume that production peaks when about 50 percent of the resource is exhausted, this puts the peak within 35 years. Think about it. Even if the optimists are correct, with a production growth rate of just 2 percent per year, the country reaches a peak within 35 years! What will we do after that?

The picture gets acutely worse as the rate of production growth rises. A 3 percent growth rate implies exhaustion in 47 years and peak in 31 years. A 5 percent growth rates means exhaustion in 37 years and a peak in just 26 years.

As it turns out, the EIA projects a growth rate of just 0.4 percent per year in U.S. natural gas supplies through 2035 with production jumping from about 24 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2010 to about 26.5 tcf in 2035, hardly a bonanza .

Beyond this consider that the vast resources of natural gas from deep shale layers, commonly called shale gas, may not be so vast. A U.S. Geological Survey assessment pared the EIA’s original estimate of “technically recoverable” natural gas in the largest of the shale deposits, the Marcellus Shale, from 410 tcf to just 84 tcf, an 80 percent reduction. And, this says nothing about whether the gas will be economically recoverable.

The 100-year figure was based on inflated estimates of recoverable natural gas and on ignoring the fact that the rate of natural gas consumption would have to rise exponentially to displace other fossil fuels. These two facts suggest that natural gas will not be the bridge fuel environmentalists are looking for.

Among the environmental community, the big fear is that coal will displace clean natural gas and even become a source for liquid fuels as oil supplies wane. That fear is founded on industry claims of vast coal supplies in the United States and elsewhere. But four studies suggest that coal may not be nearly as abundant as once believed.

A 2007 National Academy of Sciences report concluded that claims of 250 years of coal reserves in the United States at current rates of consumption could not be supported. The number was more likely to be 100 years. However, it said that a comprehensive survey was necessary to determine a more accurate figure.

But if coal consumption were to grow beyond the current rate, then the 100 years of supply would quickly shrink as in the case of natural gas. And, data from EIA shows that the total heat content of coal mined in the United States has been declining since 1998 despite roughly level production. This means that coal grades are dropping and that the actual energy the United States gets from domestic coal peaked in that year.

A second study by David Rutledge at the California Institute of Technology concluded that worldwide reserves are probably half of those currently stated. Rutledge noted that unlike oil reserves, coal reserve estimates have been steadily dropping over time as unwarranted assumptions were stripped away and the focus was put on what is actually minable.

A third study in 2007 by an independent group of analysts in Germany, the Energy Watch Group, suggests a worldwide peak in the rate of coal production as early as 2025. The authors noted that poor quality data hampered their efforts. One of the troubling gaps was China, a country thought to have some of the largest coal resources in the world. Chinese coal data, however, have not been updated since 1992, and 20 percent of China’s reserves have supposedly been mined since that date.

A fourth study published in the international journal Energy last year came to the shocking conclusion that the rate of worldwide coal production from existing fields would peak in 2011. The authors did acknowledge that vast coal fields in Alaska and Siberia remained to be developed, but doubted that these difficult-to-extract and therefore expensive reserves would be developed in time to forestall a decline. They also wrote that production from existing mines is expected to fall by 50 percent over the next 40 years.

The researchers explained that this has serious policy implications. One such implication was that money currently being spent on carbon capture and sequestration technology-a technology that assumes vast additional supplies of coal-would be better spent on outfitting existing coal-fired power stations with supercritical steam turbines, lifting efficiency from 35 percent to 50 percent. This would reduce the rate of greenhouse gas emissions while stretching out the available coal supplies so as to aid an energy transition.

Conclusions

No one knows the future. But making public policy based on industry hype could turn out to be disastrous. Keep in mind that it is the job of fossil fuel industry executives to make sure they can sell their in-ground inventories. And, of course, it’s not their job to make good public policy. Our current energy policy, which I refer to as the Good-To-The-Last-Drop Policy, has already meant a huge windfall for oil producers and to a certain extent coal producers. And yet, both regale us with tales of plenty even as constrained supplies send prices skyward.

It is certainly possible that yet-to-be-invented technologies will extend the life of fossil fuel supplies. The question is whether such technologies can be deployed before overall rates of production for oil, natural gas and coal begin to decline. Modern industrial society depends for its proper functioning on the continuous input of high-grade energy resources. If those inputs start to decline or even fail to grow, the system will falter. Some believe we are already seeing the effects of constrained oil supplies on the economy as record high prices suppress economic activity and pressure an already fragile financial system.

It seems doubtful at this time that future technologies for exploiting fossil fuels will be able to do much beyond softening the inevitable declines. And, given the known trends and data, it seems foolish to wait for these yet-to-be-invented technologies to appear. That means that leapfrogging now past fossil fuels to renewable energy is not just desirable but probably inescapable. The only question is whether we as a society will do it with a focused plan for a rapid transition or whether the transition will be chaotic and marked by violent swings in the economy as the world lurches from one energy-induced crisis to another.

Kurt Cobb is a columnist for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen and author of the peak-oil-themed thriller Prelude . His work has also been featured on Energy Bulletin, The Oil Drum, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique, EV World, and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights .

This article first appeared in the Winter 2011 edition of Sierra Atlantic, a publication of the Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club serving New York state. Permission is hereby granted to reprint this piece with attribution. Commentaries do not necessarily represent the position of ASPO-USA.)

Related Articles

Newsflash No.2: manufactured food update

By Chris Smaje , Small Farm Future

Given the basically non-existent ‘transition’ into clean energy outlined in my previous post which is failing to meet even existing needs for energy, the vast increase in renewable electricity generation that would be required to fund the additional energy demands of manufactured food if it’s to play any major part in a sustainable future makes this technology a non-starter as a mass food approach.

August 29, 2024

Why Mississippi coal is powering Georgia’s data centers

By Emily Jones , Gautama Mehta , Grist

The Southern Company has an official target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 — but its regional affiliates disclaim any responsibility toward achieving that goal, leaving open the question of how the company as a whole can decarbonize while its subsidiaries are building new fossil infrastructure and delaying the retirement of existing coal plants.

August 28, 2024

Q: Are new liquid airline fuels good climate policy? A: Pigs might fly.

By Mark Carter , Climate Code Red

The only effective way currently available for emissions reductions from aviation to align with the 2015 Paris Agreement limits, is through a dramatic reduction in the number flights — an action not seriously addressed in the government’s transport emissions reduction roadmap.

August 27, 2024

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy sources are growing quickly and will play a vital role in tackling climate change..

Since the Industrial Revolution, the energy mix of most countries across the world has become dominated by fossil fuels. This has major implications for the global climate, as well as for human health. Three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions result from the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Fossil fuels are responsible for large amounts of local air pollution – a health problem that leads to at least 5 million premature deaths each year.

To reduce CO 2 emissions and local air pollution, the world needs to rapidly shift towards low-carbon sources of energy – nuclear and renewable technologies.

Renewable energy will play a key role in decarbonizing our energy systems in the coming decades. But how rapidly is our production of renewable energy changing? What technologies look most promising in transforming our energy mix?

In this article we look at the data on renewable energy technologies across the world; what share of energy they account for today, and how quickly this is changing.

Renewable energy generation

How much of our primary energy comes from renewables.

We often hear about the rapid growth of renewable technologies in media reports. But how much of an impact has this growth had on our energy systems?

In this interactive chart, we see the share of primary energy consumption that came from renewable technologies – the combination of hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tidal, and modern biofuels. Traditional biomass – which can be an important energy source in lower-income settings is not included.

Note that this data is based on primary energy calculated by the 'substitution method' which attempts to correct for the inefficiencies in fossil fuel production. It does this by converting non-fossil fuel sources to their 'input equivalents': the amount of primary energy that would be required to produce the same amount of energy if it came from fossil fuels.

Approximately one-seventh of the world's primary energy is now sourced from renewable technologies.

Note that this is based on renewable energy's share in the energy mix. Energy consumption represents the sum of electricity, transport, and heating. We look at the electricity mix later in this article.

Breakdown of renewables in the energy mix

In the section above we looked at what share renewable technologies collectively accounted for in the energy mix.

In the charts shown here, we look at the breakdown of renewable technologies by their components – hydropower, solar, wind, and others.

The first chart shows this as a stacked area chart, which allows us to more readily see the breakdown of the renewable mix and the relative contribution of each. The second chart is shown as a line chart, allowing us to see more clearly how each source is changing over time.

Globally we see that hydropower is by far the largest modern renewable source. However, we also see wind and solar power both growing rapidly.

Renewables in the electricity mix

How much of our electricity comes from renewables.

In the sections above we looked at the role of renewables in the total energy mix . This includes not only electricity but also transport and heating. Electricity forms only one component of energy consumption.

Since transport and heating tend to be harder to decarbonize – they are more reliant on oil and gas – renewables tend to have a higher share in the electricity mix versus the total energy mix.

This interactive chart shows the share of electricity that comes from renewable technologies.

Globally, almost one-third of our electricity comes from renewables.

Hydropower generation

Hydroelectric power has been one of our oldest and largest sources of low-carbon energy. Hydroelectric generation at scale dates back more than a century, and is still our largest renewable source – excluding traditional biomass, it still accounts for approximately half of renewable generation.

However, the scale of hydroelectric power generation varies significantly across the world. This interactive chart shows its contribution by country.

Share of primary energy that comes from hydropower

This interactive chart shows the share of primary energy that comes from hydropower.

Share of electricity that comes from hydropower

This interactive chart shows the share of electricity that comes from hydropower.

Wind energy

Wind energy generation.

This interactive chart shows the amount of energy generated from wind each year. This includes both onshore and offshore wind farms.

Wind generation at scale – compared to hydropower, for example – is a relatively modern renewable energy source but is growing quickly in many countries across the world.

Installed wind capacity

The previous section looked at the energy output from wind farms across the world. Energy output is a function of power (installed capacity) multiplied by the time of generation.

Energy generation is therefore a function of how much wind capacity is installed. This interactive chart shows installed wind capacity – including both onshore and offshore – across the world.

Share of primary energy that comes from wind

This interactive chart shows the share of primary energy that comes from wind.

Share of electricity that comes from wind

This interactive chart shows the share of electricity that comes from wind.

Solar energy

Solar energy generation.

This interactive chart shows the amount of energy generated from solar power each year.

Solar generation at scale – compared to hydropower, for example – is a relatively modern renewable energy source but is growing quickly in many countries across the world.

Installed solar capacity

The previous section looked at the energy output from solar across the world. Energy output is a function of power (installed capacity) multiplied by the time of generation.

Energy generation is therefore a function of how much solar capacity is installed. This interactive chart shows installed solar capacity across the world.

Share of primary energy that comes from solar

This interactive chart shows the share of primary energy that comes from solar power.

Share of electricity that comes from solar

This interactive chart shows the share of electricity that comes from solar power.

Biofuel production

Traditional biomass – the burning of charcoal, organic wastes, and crop residues – was an important energy source for a long period of human history. It remains an important source in lower-income settings today. However, high-quality estimates of energy consumption from these sources are difficult to find. The Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy – our main data source on energy – only publishes data on commercially traded energy, so traditional biomass is not included.

However, modern biofuels are included in this energy data. Bioethanol and biodiesel – fuel made from crops such as corn, sugarcane, hemp, and cassava – are now a key transport fuel in many countries.

This interactive chart shows modern biofuel production across the world.

Installed geothermal capacity

This interactive chart shows the installed capacity of geothermal energy across the world.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

Sources of Energy: A Comparison

Learn how turning toward cleaner energy sources means factoring in economic and energy needs alongside environmental ones.

A solar panel park and wind turbines are seen along the highway in Geldermalsen, Netherlands on June 28, 2023.

Source: Piroschka van de Wouw / Reuters

If you want to be eco-friendly, you should be driving an electric car. Right?

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. While electric cars do not pollute the air around them like a combustion engine does, they do need to be charged, leading to questions such as what energy source the electricity is coming from and whether that energy source is clean.

The overall evaluation of an energy source is based not only on how clean it is; it also has to be reliable, accessible, and affordable. Not all of these factors can be categorized neatly. For example, petroleum tends to be relatively affordable in the United States, but that is in part because the government subsidizes fossil fuel industries. Similarly, while wind energy tends to be relatively expensive, its cost has been steadily declining for years as its use increases.

To evaluate the options available, understanding fundamental facts about what types of energy are available and what trade-offs each presents is helpful.

There are three main categories of energy sources: fossil fuel, alternative, and renewable. Renewable is sometimes, but not always, included under alternative.

Fossil Fuels : Petroleum, Coal, and Natural Gas

Fossil fuels formed over millions of years ago as dead plants and animals were subjected to extreme heat and pressure in the earth’s crust. This natural process converted bones and other organic matter into carbon-rich substances that, when burned, generate energy. There are three main fossil fuels.

• Petroleum is an umbrella term that includes products such as crude oil, which is refined into more familiar fuels such as gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, and diesel. Petroleum and oil are often used interchangeably. It is extracted through drilling or hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking ).
• Coal is a rock found close to the earth’s surface and is one of the world’s most abundant fossil fuels. It is extracted through surface mining (using machines to clear away the uppermost layers of rock and soil) and underground mining (using machines and miners to remove coal deep underground).
• Natural gas , a mixture of gases trapped underneath the earth’s surface, is extracted in similar ways as oil. Advances in drilling and fracking have unlocked vast reserves of natural gas.

Fossil fuels are often called dirty energy sources because using them comes at a high—and often irreversible—cost to the environment. Carbon emissions , or the amount of carbon dioxide these fuels release into the atmosphere, add up over generations and cannot be taken back. Moreover, there is only a finite amount of these resources on earth. 

Renewable and Alternative Energy : Wind Power, Solar Power, Hydropower, Nuclear Energy, and Biofuels

Forms of energy not derived from fossil fuels include both renewable and alternative energy , terms that are sometimes used interchangeably but do not mean the same thing. Alternative energy broadly refers to any energy that is not extracted from a fossil fuel, but not necessarily only from a renewable source. For example, nuclear power generation most commonly uses uranium, an abundant but not technically renewable fuel. Renewable energy , on the other hand, includes sources such as sun and wind that occur naturally and continuously. 

There are five main renewable and alternative fuels.

• Wind power is created when wind spins a turbine, or a windmill, which can be located on land or offshore. 
• Solar power harnesses the sun’s energy in two ways: by converting the sun’s light directly into electricity when the sun is out (think solar panels), or solar thermal energy, which uses the sun’s heat to create electricity, a method that works even when the sun is down.
• Hydropower is created when rapidly flowing water turns turbines inside a dam, generating electricity.
• Nuclear energy is produced at power plants by the process of nuclear fission . The energy created during nuclear reactions is harnessed to produce electricity.
• Biofuels , also referred to as biomass, are produced using organic materials (wood, agricultural crops and waste, food waste, and animal manure) that contain stored energy from the sun. Humans have used biomass since they discovered how to burn wood to make fire. Liquid biofuels, such as ethanol, also release chemical energy in the form of heat. 

Renewable and alternative energy sources are often categorized as clean energy because they produce significantly less carbon emissions compared to fossil fuels. But they are not without an environmental footprint.

Hydropower generation, for example, releases lower carbon emissions than fossil fuel plants do. However, damming water to build reservoirs for hydropower floods valleys, disrupting local ecosystems and livelihoods. In another case, biofuels are renewable but are cultivated on huge swaths of land and sometimes generate more carbon emissions than fossil fuels do.

Other considerations such as safety also matter. The likelihood of a meltdown at a nuclear facility is exceedingly small, but if one were to occur, the results would be catastrophic. In fact, concerns about the dangers associated with operating nuclear power plants have limited the expansion of nuclear energy.  

Despite the diversity of energy sources available, most countries rely on the three major fossil fuels.

In 2018, more than 81 percent of the energy countries produced came from fossil fuels. Hydroelectricity and other renewable energy (14 percent) and nuclear energy (about 5 percent) accounted for the remainder. But not all countries consume energy at the same levels. For example, the United States, China, and European Union countries combined were responsible for half of the world’s total coal, natural gas, and oil consumption in 2018. Nor do all countries use the same mix of fuels. Norway primarily uses hydroelectric power, for example, but in Saudi Arabia oil reigns supreme. When choosing which types of energy to use, countries balance their economic needs with environmental concerns.

Electric Power Consumption by Country

Click on each country for information about its use of energy sources.

Source: World Bank.

Climate change has added new considerations and urgency to the decisions countries make about their energy sources.

Developing countries have different needs than developed countries—and they face a different set of energy challenges as consequences of climate change become more severe. Many developing countries are going through industrialization , the development of factories and mass production, which requires large amounts of energy. Some of these countries see fossil fuels as the best way to achieve those energy goals, though many are turning to alternative energy sources as well—seeing them as the future of energy consumption.

In 2015, 196 countries pledged to increase their use of clean energy as part of the Paris Agreement , an international treaty that allowed signatories to set their own goals for lower carbon emissions . As countries around the world push to adopt more clean energy sources, they will increasingly contend with the environmental and economic trade-offs that renewable sources present and the reality that opting for clean over dirty energy is not such a simple choice after all.

Match extended. Your support doubled!

The stakes have never been higher: the climate emergency. fascism at the door. billionaires buying elections. wars without end. oligarchs attacking the working class. biodiversity under threat. common dreams covers news in a way the corporate media never will. but we only survive with your help. donate now to support common dreams and double your impact..

Wind turbine blades and connected photovoltaic panels are seen in the tidal flat wetland of Yancheng City, Jiangsu province, September 23, 2023.

7 Steps to What a Real Renewable Energy Transition Looks Like

Historically, an overhaul for humanity's energy system would take hundreds or many thousands of years. the rapid shift to cleaner, more sustainable sources of power generations will easily be the most ambitious enterprise our species has ever undertaken..

Humanity’s transition from relying overwhelmingly on fossil fuels to instead using alternative low-carbon energy sources is sometimes said to be unstoppable and exponential . A boosterish attitude on the part of many renewable energy advocates is understandable: overcoming people’s climate despair and sowing confidence could help muster the needed groundswell of motivation to end our collective fossil fuel dependency. But occasionally a reality check is in order.

The reality is that energy transitions are a big deal, and they typically take centuries to unfold. Historically, they’ve been transformative for societies—whether we’re speaking of humanity’s taming of fire hundreds of thousands of years ago, the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago, or our adoption of fossil fuels starting roughly 200 years ago. Given (1) the current size of the human population (there are eight times as many of us alive today as there were in 1820, when the fossil fuel energy transition was getting underway), (2) the vast scale of the global economy, and (3) the unprecedented speed with which the transition will have to be made in order to avert catastrophic climate change, a rapid renewable energy transition is easily the most ambitious enterprise our species has ever undertaken.

As we’ll see, the evidence shows that the transition is still in its earliest stages, and at the current rate, it will fail to avert a climate catastrophe in which an unimaginable number of people will either die or be forced to migrate, with most ecosystems transformed beyond recognition.

Implementing these seven steps will change everything. The result will be a world that’s less crowded, one where nature is recovering rather than retreating, and one in which people are healthier (because they’re not soaked in pollution) and happier.

We’ll unpack the reasons why the transition is currently such an uphill slog. Then, crucially, we’ll explore what a real energy transition would look like, and how to make it happen.

Why This Is (So Far) Not a Real Transition

Despite trillions of dollars having been spent on renewable energy infrastructure, carbon emissions are still increasing , not decreasing, and the share of world energy coming from fossil fuels is only slightly less today than it was 20 years ago. In 2024, the world is using more oil, coal, and natural gas than it did in 2023.

While the U.S. and many European nations have seen a declining share of their electricity production coming from coal, the continuing global growth in fossil fuel usage and CO2 emissions overshadows any cause for celebration .

Why is the rapid deployment of renewable energy not resulting in declining fossil fuel usage? The main culprit is economic growth, which consumes more energy and materials . So far, the amount of annual growth in the world’s energy usage has exceeded the amount of energy added each year from new solar panels and wind turbines. Fossil fuels have supplied the difference.

So, for the time being at least, we are not experiencing a real energy transition. All that humanity is doing is adding energy from renewable sources to the growing amount of energy it derives from fossil fuels. The much-touted energy transition could, if somewhat cynically, be described as just an aspirational grail.

How long would it take for humanity to fully replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, accounting for both the current growth trajectory of solar and wind power, and also the continued expansion of the global economy at the recent rate of 3 percent per year? Economic models suggest the world could obtain most of its electricity from renewables by 2060 (though many nations are not on a path to reach even this modest marker). However, electricity represents only about 20 percent of the world’s final energy usage; transitioning the other 80 percent of energy usage would take longer—likely many decades.

However, to avert catastrophic climate change, the global scientific community says we need to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050—i.e., in just 25 years. Since it seems physically impossible to get all of our energy from renewables that soon while still growing the economy at recent rates, the IPCC (the international agency tasked with studying climate change and its possible remedies) assumes that humanity will somehow adopt carbon capture and sequestration technologies at scale—including technologies that have been shown not to work —even though there is no existing way of paying for this vast industrial build-out. This wishful thinking on the part of the IPCC is surely proof that the energy transition is not happening at sufficient speed.

Why isn’t it? One reason is that governments, businesses, and an awful lot of regular folks are clinging to an unrealistic goal for the transition. Another reason is that there is insufficient tactical and strategic global management of the overall effort. We’ll address these problems separately, and in the process uncover what it would take to nurture a true energy transition.

The Core of the Transition is Using Less Energy

At the heart of most discussions about the energy transition lie two enormous assumptions: that the transition will leave us with a global industrial economy similar to today’s in terms of its scale and services, and that this future renewable-energy economy will continue to grow, as the fossil-fueled economy has done in recent decades. But both of these assumptions are unrealistic. They flow from a largely unstated goal: we want the energy transition to be completely painless, with no sacrifice of profit or convenience. That goal is understandable, since it would presumably be easier to enlist the public, governments, and businesses in an enormous new task if no cost is incurred (though the history of overwhelming societal effort and sacrifice during wartime might lead us to question that presumption).

But the energy transition will undoubtedly entail costs. Aside from tens of trillions of dollars in required monetary investment, the energy transition will itself require energy—lots of it. It will take energy to build solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps, electric vehicles, electric farm machinery, zero-carbon aircraft, batteries, and the rest of the vast panoply of devices that would be required to operate an electrified global industrial economy at current scale.

In the early stages of the transition, most of that energy for building new low-carbon infrastructure will have to come from fossil fuels, since those fuels still supply over 80 percent of world energy (bootstrapping the transition—using only renewable energy to build transition-related machinery—would take far too long). So, the transition itself, especially if undertaken quickly, will entail a large pulse of carbon emissions. Teams of scientists have been seeking to estimate the size of that pulse; one group suggests that transition-related emissions will be substantial, ranging from 70 to 395 billion metric tons of CO2 “with a cross-scenario average of 195 GtCO2”—the equivalent of more than five years’ worth of global carbon CO2 emissions at current rates. The only ways to minimize these transition-related emissions would be, first, to aim to build a substantially smaller global energy system than the one we are trying to replace; and second, to significantly reduce energy usage for non-transition-related purposes—including transportation and manufacturing, cornerstones of our current economy—during the transition.

In addition to energy, the transition will require materials. While our current fossil-fuel energy regime extracts billions of tons of coal, oil, and gas, plus much smaller amounts of iron, bauxite, and other ores for making drills, pipelines, pumps, and other related equipment, the construction of renewable energy infrastructure at commensurate scale would require far larger quantities of non-fuel raw materials —including copper, iron, aluminum, lithium, iridium, gallium, sand, and rare earth elements.

While some estimates suggest that global reserves of these elements are sufficient for the initial build-out of renewable-energy infrastructure at scale, there are still two big challenges. First: obtaining these materials will require greatly expanding extractive industries along with their supply chains. These industries are inherently polluting, and they inevitably degrade land. For example, to produce one ton of copper ore, over 125 tons of rock and soil must be displaced. The rock-to-metal ratio is even worse for some other ores . Mining operations often take place on Indigenous peoples’ lands and the tailings from those operations often pollute rivers and streams. Non-human species and communities in the global South are already traumatized by land degradation and toxification; greatly expanding resource extraction—including deep-sea mining —would only deepen and multiply the wounds.

The second materials challenge: renewable energy infrastructure will have to be replaced periodically— every 25 to 50 years . Even if Earth’s minerals are sufficient for the first full-scale build-out of panels, turbines, and batteries, will limited mineral abundance permit continual replacements? Transition advocates say that we can avoid depleting the planet’s ores by recycling minerals and metals after constructing the first iteration of solar-and-wind technology. However, recycling is never complete, with some materials degraded in the process. One analysis suggests recycling would only buy a couple of centuries’ worth of time before depletion would bring an end to the regime of replaceable renewable-energy machines—and that’s assuming a widespread, coordinated implementation of recycling on an unprecedented scale. Again, the only real long-term solution is to aim for a much smaller global energy system.

The transition of society from fossil fuel dependency to reliance on low-carbon energy sources will be impossible to achieve without also reducing overall energy usage substantially and maintaining this lower rate of energy usage indefinitely. This transition isn’t just about building lots of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. It is about organizing society differently so that is uses much less energy and gets whatever energy it uses from sources that can be sustained over the long run.

How We Could Actually Do It, In Seven Concurrent Steps

Step one: Cap global fossil fuel extraction through global treaty, and annually lower the cap. We will not reduce carbon emissions until we reduce fossil fuel usage—it’s just that simple. Rather than trying to do this by adding renewable energy (which so far hasn’t resulted in a lessening of emissions), it makes far more sense simply to limit fossil fuel extraction. I wrote up the basics of a treaty along these lines several years ago in my book, The Oil Depletion Protocol .

Step two: Manage energy demand fairly. Reducing fossil fuel extraction presents a problem. Where will we get the energy required for transition purposes? Realistically, it can only be obtained by repurposing energy we’re currently using for non-transition purposes. That means most people, especially in highly industrialized countries, would have to use significantly less energy, both directly and also indirectly (in terms of energy embedded in products, and in services provided by society, such as road building). To accomplish this with the minimum of societal stress will require a social means of managing energy demand.

The fairest and most direct way to manage energy demand is via quota rationing . Tradable Energy Quotas ( TEQs ) is a system designed two decades ago by British economist David Fleming; it rewards energy savers and gently punishes energy guzzlers while ensuring that everyone gets energy they actually need. Every adult would be given an equal free entitlement of TEQs units each week. If you use less than your entitlement of units, you can sell your surplus. If you need more, you can buy them. All trading takes place at a single national price, which will rise and fall in line with demand.

Step three: Manage the public’s material expectations . Persuading people to accept using less energy will be hard, if everyone still wants to use more. Therefore, it will be necessary to manage the public’s expectations. This may sound technocratic and scary, but in fact society has already been managing the public’s expectations for over a century via advertising—which constantly delivers messages encouraging everyone to consume as much as they can. Now we need different messages to set different expectations.

What’s our objective in life? Is it to have as much stuff as possible, or to be happy and secure? Our current economic system assumes the former, and we have instituted an economic goal (constant growth) and an indicator (gross domestic product, or GDP) to help us achieve that goal. But ever-more people using ever-more stuff and energy leads to increased rates of depletion, pollution, and degradation, thereby imperiling the survival of humanity and the rest of the biosphere. In addition, the goal of happiness and security is more in line with cultural traditions and human psychology . If happiness and security are to be our goals, we should adopt indicators that help us achieve them. Instead of GDP, which simply measures the amount of money changing hands in a country annually, we should measure societal success by monitoring human well-being. The tiny country of Bhutan has been doing this for decades with its Gross National Happiness ( GNH ) indicator, which it has offered as a model for the rest of the world.

Step four: Aim for population decline . If population is always growing while available energy is capped, that means ever-less energy will be available per capita. Even if societies ditch GDP and adopt GNH, the prospect of continually declining energy availability will present adaptive challenges. How can energy scarcity impacts be minimized? The obvious solution: welcome population decline and plan accordingly.

Global population will start to decline sometime during this century . Fertility rates are falling worldwide, and China, Japan, Germany, and many other nations are already seeing population shrinkage. Rather than viewing this as a problem, we should see it as an opportunity. With fewer people, energy decline will be less of a burden on a per capita basis. There are also side benefits: a smaller population puts less pressure on wild nature, and often results in rising wages . We should stop pushing a pro-natalist agenda; ensure that women have the educational opportunities, social standing, security, and access to birth control to make their own childbearing choices; incentivize small families, and aim for the long-term goal of a stable global population closer to the number of people who were alive at the start of the fossil-fuel revolution (even though voluntary population shrinkage will be too slow to help us much in reaching immediate emissions reduction targets).

Step five: Target technological research and development to the transition. Today the main test of any new technology is simply its profitability. However, the transition will require new technologies to meet an entirely different set of criteria, including low-energy operation and minimization of exotic and toxic materials. Fortunately, there is already a subculture of engineers developing low-energy and intermediate technologies that could help run a right-sized circular economy .

Step six: Institute technological triage . Many of our existing technologies don’t meet these new criteria. So, during the transition, we will be letting go of familiar but ultimately destructive and unsustainable machines.

Some energy-guzzling machines—such as gasoline-powered leaf blowers —will be easy to say goodbye to. Commercial aircraft will be harder. Artificial intelligence is an energy guzzler we managed to live without until very recently; perhaps it’s best if we bid it a quick farewell. Cruise ships? Easy: downsize them, replace their engines with sails, and expect to take just one grand voyage during your lifetime. Weapons industries offer plenty of examples of machines we could live without . Of course, giving up some of our labor-saving devices will require us to learn useful skills—which could end up providing us with more exercise. For guidance along these lines, consult the rich literature of technology criticism.

Step seven: Help nature absorb excess carbon . The IPCC is right: if we’re to avert catastrophic climate change we need to capture carbon from the air and sequester it for a long time. But not with machines. Nature already removes and stores enormous amounts of carbon; we just need to help it do more (rather than reducing its carbon-capturing capabilities, which is what humanity is doing now). Reform agriculture to build soil rather than destroy it. Restore ecosystems , including grasslands, wetlands, forests, and coral reefs.

Granted, this seven-step program appears politically unachievable today. But that’s largely because humanity hasn’t yet fully faced the failure of our current path of prioritizing immediate profits and comfort above long-term survival—and the consequences of that failure. Given better knowledge of where we’re currently headed, and the alternatives, what is politically impossible today could quickly become inevitable.

Social philosopher Roman Krznaric writes that profound social transformations are often tied to wars, natural disasters, or revolutions. But crisis alone is not positively transformative. There must also be ideas available for different ways to organize society, and social movements energized by those ideas. We have a crisis and (as we have just seen) some good ideas for how to do things differently. Now we need a movement.

Building a movement takes political and social organizing skills, time, and hard work. Even if you don’t have the skills for organizing, you can help the cause by learning what a real energy transition requires and then educating the people you know; by advocating for degrowth or related policies; and by reducing your own energy and materials consumption . Calculate your ecological footprint and shrink it over time, using goals and strategies, and tell your family and friends what you are doing and why.

Even with a new social movement advocating for a real energy transition, there is no guarantee that civilization will emerge from this century of unraveling in a recognizable form. But we all need to understand: this is a fight for survival in which cooperation and sacrifice are required, just as in total war. Until we feel that level of shared urgency, there will be no real energy transition, and little prospect for a desirable human future.

Join Us: News for people demanding a better world

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Quality journalism. progressive values. direct to your inbox..

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy comes from sources that will not be used up in our lifetimes, such as the sun and wind.

Earth Science, Experiential Learning, Engineering, Geology

Wind Turbines in a Sheep Pasture

Wind turbines use the power of wind to generate energy. This is just one source of renewable energy.

Photograph by Jesus Keller/ Shutterstock

The wind, the sun, and Earth are sources of  renewable energy . These energy sources naturally renew, or replenish themselves.

Wind, sunlight, and the planet have energy that transforms in ways we can see and feel. We can see and feel evidence of the transfer of energy from the sun to Earth in the sunlight shining on the ground and the warmth we feel when sunlight shines on our skin. We can see and feel evidence of the transfer of energy in wind’s ability to pull kites higher into the sky and shake the leaves on trees. We can see and feel evidence of the transfer of energy in the geothermal energy of steam vents and geysers .

People have created different ways to capture the energy from these renewable sources.

Solar Energy

Solar energy can be captured “actively” or “passively.”

Active solar energy uses special technology to capture the sun’s rays. The two main types of equipment are photovoltaic cells (also called PV cells or solar cells) and mirrors that focus sunlight in a specific spot. These active solar technologies use sunlight to generate electricity , which we use to power lights, heating systems, computers, and televisions.

Passive solar energy does not use any equipment. Instead, it gets energy from the way sunlight naturally changes throughout the day. For example, people can build houses so their windows face the path of the sun. This means the house will get more heat from the sun. It will take less energy from other sources to heat the house.

Other examples of passive solar technology are green roofs , cool roofs, and radiant barriers . Green roofs are completely covered with plants. Plants can get rid of pollutants in rainwater and air. They help make the local environment cleaner.

Cool roofs are painted white to better reflect sunlight. Radiant barriers are made of a reflective covering, such as aluminum. They both reflect the sun’s heat instead of absorbing it. All these types of roofs help lower the amount of energy needed to cool the building.

Advantages and Disadvantages There are many advantages to using solar energy. PV cells last for a long time, about 20 years.

However, there are reasons why solar power cannot be used as the only power source in a community. It can be expensive to install PV cells or build a building using passive solar technology.

Sunshine can also be hard to predict. It can be blocked by clouds, and the sun doesn’t shine at night. Different parts of Earth receive different amounts of sunlight based on location, the time of year, and the time of day.

Wind Energy

People have been harnessing the wind’s energy for a long, long time. Five-thousand years ago, ancient Egyptians made boats powered by the wind. In 200 B.C.E., people used windmills to grind grain in the Middle East and pump water in China.

Today, we capture the wind’s energy with wind turbines . A turbine is similar to a windmill; it has a very tall tower with two or three propeller-like blades at the top. These blades are turned by the wind. The blades turn a generator (located inside the tower), which creates electricity.

Groups of wind turbines are known as wind farms . Wind farms can be found near farmland, in narrow mountain passes, and even in the ocean, where there are steadier and stronger winds. Wind turbines anchored in the ocean are called “ offshore wind farms.”

Wind farms create electricity for nearby homes, schools, and other buildings.

Advantages and Disadvantages Wind energy can be very efficient . In places like the Midwest in the United States and along coasts, steady winds can provide cheap, reliable electricity.

Another great advantage of wind power is that it is a “clean” form of energy. Wind turbines do not burn fuel or emit any pollutants into the air.

Wind is not always a steady source of energy, however. Wind speed changes constantly, depending on the time of day, weather , and geographic location. Currently, it cannot be used to provide electricity for all our power needs.

Wind turbines can also be dangerous for bats and birds. These animals cannot always judge how fast the blades are moving and crash into them.

Geothermal Energy

Deep beneath the surface is Earth’s core . The center of Earth is extremely hot—thought to be over 6,000 °C (about 10,800 °F). The heat is constantly moving toward the surface.

We can see some of Earth’s heat when it bubbles to the surface. Geothermal energy can melt underground rocks into magma and cause the magma to bubble to the surface as lava . Geothermal energy can also heat underground sources of water and force it to spew out from the surface. This stream of water is called a geyser.

However, most of Earth’s heat stays underground and makes its way out very, very slowly.

We can access underground geothermal heat in different ways. One way of using geothermal energy is with “geothermal heat pumps.” A pipe of water loops between a building and holes dug deep underground. The water is warmed by the geothermal energy underground and brings the warmth aboveground to the building. Geothermal heat pumps can be used to heat houses, sidewalks, and even parking lots.

Another way to use geothermal energy is with steam. In some areas of the world, there is underground steam that naturally rises to the surface. The steam can be piped straight to a power plant. However, in other parts of the world, the ground is dry. Water must be injected underground to create steam. When the steam comes to the surface, it is used to turn a generator and create electricity.

In Iceland, there are large reservoirs of underground water. Almost 90 percent of people in Iceland use geothermal as an energy source to heat their homes and businesses.

Advantages and Disadvantages An advantage of geothermal energy is that it is clean. It does not require any fuel or emit any harmful pollutants into the air.

Geothermal energy is only avaiable in certain parts of the world. Another disadvantage of using geothermal energy is that in areas of the world where there is only dry heat underground, large quantities of freshwater are used to make steam. There may not be a lot of freshwater. People need water for drinking, cooking, and bathing.

Biomass Energy

Biomass is any material that comes from plants or microorganisms that were recently living. Plants create energy from the sun through photosynthesis . This energy is stored in the plants even after they die.

Trees, branches, scraps of bark, and recycled paper are common sources of biomass energy. Manure, garbage, and crops , such as corn, soy, and sugar cane, can also be used as biomass feedstocks .

We get energy from biomass by burning it. Wood chips, manure, and garbage are dried out and compressed into squares called “briquettes.” These briquettes are so dry that they do not absorb water. They can be stored and burned to create heat or generate electricity.

Biomass can also be converted into biofuel . Biofuels are mixed with regular gasoline and can be used to power cars and trucks. Biofuels release less harmful pollutants than pure gasoline.

Advantages and Disadvantages A major advantage of biomass is that it can be stored and then used when it is needed.

Growing crops for biofuels, however, requires large amounts of land and pesticides . Land could be used for food instead of biofuels. Some pesticides could pollute the air and water.

Biomass energy can also be a nonrenewable energy source. Biomass energy relies on biomass feedstocks—plants that are processed and burned to create electricity. Biomass feedstocks can include crops, such as corn or soy, as well as wood. If people do not replant biomass feedstocks as fast as they use them, biomass energy becomes a non-renewable energy source.

Hydroelectric Energy

Hydroelectric energy is made by flowing water. Most hydroelectric power plants are located on large dams , which control the flow of a river.

Dams block the river and create an artificial lake, or reservoir. A controlled amount of water is forced through tunnels in the dam. As water flows through the tunnels, it turns huge turbines and generates electricity.

Advantages and Disadvantages Hydroelectric energy is fairly inexpensive to harness. Dams do not need to be complex, and the resources to build them are not difficult to obtain. Rivers flow all over the world, so the energy source is available to millions of people.

Hydroelectric energy is also fairly reliable. Engineers control the flow of water through the dam, so the flow does not depend on the weather (the way solar and wind energies do).

However, hydroelectric power plants are damaging to the environment. When a river is dammed, it creates a large lake behind the dam. This lake (sometimes called a reservoir) drowns the original river habitat deep underwater. Sometimes, people build dams that can drown entire towns underwater. The people who live in the town or village must move to a new area.

Hydroelectric power plants don’t work for a very long time: Some can only supply power for 20 or 30 years. Silt , or dirt from a riverbed, builds up behind the dam and slows the flow of water.

Other Renewable Energy Sources

Scientists and engineers are constantly working to harness other renewable energy sources. Three of the most promising are tidal energy , wave energy , and algal (or algae) fuel.

Tidal energy harnesses the power of ocean tides to generate electricity. Some tidal energy projects use the moving tides to turn the blades of a turbine. Other projects use small dams to continually fill reservoirs at high tide and slowly release the water (and turn turbines) at low tide.

Wave energy harnesses waves from the ocean, lakes, or rivers. Some wave energy projects use the same equipment that tidal energy projects do—dams and standing turbines. Other wave energy projects float directly on waves. The water’s constant movement over and through these floating pieces of equipment turns turbines and creates electricity.

Algal fuel is a type of biomass energy that uses the unique chemicals in seaweed to create a clean and renewable biofuel. Algal fuel does not need the acres of cropland that other biofuel feedstocks do.

Renewable Nations

These nations (or groups of nations) produce the most energy using renewable resources. Many of them are also the leading producers of nonrenewable energy: China, European Union, United States, Brazil, and Canada

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Last Updated

June 21, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

2. Public opinion on renewables and other energy sources

Americans’ concerns about climate change have put energy production of fossil fuels and the carbon gases these fuels emit at the center of public discussions about climate and the environment. Those debates coupled with long-standing economic pressures to decrease reliance on other countries for energy needs have raised attention to renewable forms of energy including solar and wind power.

Public opinion about energy issues is widely supportive of expanding both solar and wind power but more closely divided when it comes to expanding fossil fuel energies such as coal mining, offshore oil and gas drilling, and hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas. While there are substantial party and ideological divides over increasing fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources, strong majorities of all party and ideology groups support more solar and wind production.

Most Americans know the U.S. is producing more energy today

Most Americans are aware of America’s ongoing energy boom . The United States is producing more energy from fossil fuels and has ticked up production of renewable sources such as wind and solar. A large majority of Americans (72%) say the United States is producing more energy than it did 20 years ago. Far smaller shares say the U.S. is producing the same level (17%) or less energy (10%) than it did 20 years ago 8

Majorities across demographic, educational and political groups say the U.S. is producing more energy today. Awareness of this trend is especially high among those with postgraduate degrees (86% compared with 64% among those with high school degrees or less). Men are more inclined to say the U.S. is producing more energy than women (79% vs. 66%), while Democrats are modestly more likely than Republicans to say this (79% vs. 65%).

Strong public support for more wind and solar, closer divides over nuclear and fossil fuels

Large majorities of Americans favor expanding renewable sources to provide energy, but the public is far less supportive of increasing the production of fossil fuels, such as oil and gas, and nuclear energy.

Fully 89% of Americans favor more solar panel farms, just 9% oppose. A similarly large share supports more wind turbine farms (83% favor, 14% oppose).

By comparison, the public is more divided over expanding the production of nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources. Specifically, 45% favor more offshore oil and gas drilling, while 52% oppose. Similar shares support and oppose expanding hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” for oil and gas (42% favor and 53% oppose). Some 41% favor more coal mining, while a 57% majority opposes this.

And, 43% of Americans support building more nuclear power plants, while 54% oppose. Past Pew Research Center surveys on energy issues, using somewhat different question wording and survey methodology, found opinion broadly in keeping with this new survey. For example, the balance of opinion in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey about building more nuclear power plants was similar (45% favor, 51% oppose), and some 52% of Americans favored and 44% opposed allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in that survey.

Most Republicans and Democrats favor expanding renewables; there are strong divides over expanding fossil fuels

Across the political spectrum, large majorities support expansion of solar panel and wind turbine farms. Some 83% of conservative Republicans favor more solar panel farms; so, too, do virtually all liberal Democrats (97%). Similarly, there is widespread agreement across party and ideological groups in favor of expanding wind energy.

Consistent with past Pew Research Center surveys , this new survey finds there are deep political divides over expanding fossil fuel energy sources. Conservative Republicans stand out from other party and ideology groups in this regard. At least seven-in-ten conservative Republicans support more coal mining (73%), fracking (70%) and offshore drilling (76%). A majority of Democrats oppose expanding each of these energy sources while moderate/liberal Republicans fall somewhere in the middle on these issues.

The political divide over expanding nuclear energy is smaller. Some 57% of conservative Republicans, and 51% of all Republicans, favor more nuclear power plants. Democrats lean in the opposite direction with 59% opposed and 38% in favor of more nuclear power plants.

As also found in past Pew Research Center surveys , women are less supportive of expanding nuclear power than men, even after controlling for politics and education. Some 34% of women favor and 62% oppose more nuclear plants. Men are more closely divided on this issue: 52% favor and 46% oppose. Men and women hold more similar views on other energy issues.

Many Americans are giving serious thought to having solar panels at home

America’s solar power industry is growing. In 2016, solar is expected to add more electricity generating capacity than any other energy source in the United States. Just 4% of Americans report having home solar panels but many more − 37% − say they are giving it serious thought.

These figures are similar among homeowners. Some 44% of homeowners have already installed (4%) or have given serious thought to installing (40%) solar panels at home.

Western residents and younger adults are especially likely to say are considering, or have installed, solar panels at home. Some 14% of homeowners in the West have installed solar panels at home and another 52% say they are considering doing so. By contrast, 35% of homeowners in the South say they have installed (3%) or given serious thought to installing solar at home (33%).

Some 55% of homeowners under age 50 say they have given serious thought to installing or have already installed solar panels at home. Fewer homeowners ages 50 and older say the same (36%).

The key reasons people cite for considering solar are financial followed by concern for the environment. Among all who have installed or given serious thought to installing solar panels, large majorities say their reasons include cost savings on utilities (92%) or helping the environment (87%). Smaller shares of this group, though still majorities, say improved health (67%) or a solar tax investment credit (59%) are reasons they have or would install home solar panels.

• Pew Research Center in 2014 asked a related question – whether the amount of energy produced in the United States had been increasing, decreasing or staying the same in recent years. In that survey, 54% of Americans said the amount of energy produced had been increasing, while 27% said it had been staying the same and 10% said it had been decreasing. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

Most Popular

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• News & Views
• Published: 11 July 2019

Renewables rise above fossil fuels

• Graham Palmer 1 , 2  

Nature Energy volume  4 ,  pages 538–539 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

1898 Accesses

42 Citations

14 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Fossil fuels
• Renewable energy

Fossil fuels have long been considered cheap compared to other energy sources, such as solar or wind. Researchers now show that with easy-to-access fossil fuels running out, the more productive renewables may be approaching and even exceeding oil and gas in net energy generation in many cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Energy requirements and carbon emissions for a low-carbon energy transition

• Aljoša Slameršak
• , Giorgos Kallis
•  &  Daniel W. O’Neill

Nature Communications Open Access 14 November 2022

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Brockway, P. E., Owen, A., Brand-Correa, L. & Hardt, L. Nat. Energy https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0425-z (2019).

Glaub, M. & Hall, C. A. S. Hum. Ecol. 45 , 393–401 (2017).

Article   Google Scholar  

Raugei, M. Nat. Energy 4 , 86–88 (2019).

Stadler, K. et al. J. Ind. Ecol. 22 , 502–515 (2018).

International Energy Agency Extended World Energy Balances (OECD, 2017).

Hall, C. A. S., Balogh, S. & Murphy, D. J. R. Energies 2 , 25–47 (2009).

King, C. W. Energies 8 , 12997–13020 (2009).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Graham Palmer

Energy Transition Hub, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Graham Palmer .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Palmer, G. Renewables rise above fossil fuels. Nat Energy 4 , 538–539 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0426-y

Download citation

Published : 11 July 2019

Issue Date : July 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0426-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

• Giorgos Kallis
• Daniel W. O’Neill

Nature Communications (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

The Energy Narratives: Fossil Fuels Versus Renewables

• First Online: 08 October 2020

Cite this chapter

• Carey W. King 2  

679 Accesses

This chapter summarizes the competing narratives for and against the use of fossil and renewable energy resources and technologies. The chapter presents pros and cons as expressed by each narrative so that the reader understands how the narratives do and do not relate to data from Chapter 2. The pros and cons are expressed via several concepts used in debating the energy narratives: energy resource size, the price of energy, energy reliability, morality, energy in economic development, environmental impacts such as land and greenhouse gas emissions, and government support, or subsidies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Former spokesman for Fueling U.S. Forward and senior adviser in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy as appointed by President Donald Trump. Quote from “Fossil fuel promoter settles into renewable energy office” by Hannah Northey, E & E News , July 17, 2011, https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/11/stories/1060057185 , accessed July 11, 2017.

Gavin Bade, “FERC nominee McNamee slams renewables, green groups in Feb. video,” Utility Dive November 20, 2018: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-nominee-mcnamee-slams-renewables-green-groups-in-feb-video/542702/?mc_cid=a5911a78d7&mc_eid=d6e84014c0 .

This website http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/08/09/solar/ says this quote is attributed to Edison via his friend James D. Newton via Newton’s 1987 book Uncommon Friends: Life with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, Alexis Carrel, & Charles Lindbergh .

The Energy Report: 100% Renewable Energy by 2050, [ 38 ].

From Article dated June 17, 2015 at http://www.alternet.org/environment/sunlight-striking-earths-surface-just-one-hour-delivers-enough-energy-power-world , accessed August 3, 2017 and stated as an excerpt from book The Great Transition: Shifting from Fossil Fuels to Solar and Wind Energy , by Lester R. Brown, with Janet Larsen, J. Matthew Roney, and Emily E. Adams.

Approximating the Earth as a sphere, its surface area = 4 πr 2  ∼ 510, 000, 000 km 2 with the radius of the Earth approximately r  = 6378 km [ 92 ].

See the National Renewable Energy Laboratory chart that tracks the historical trend of efficiency for various solar photovoltaic technologies: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html .

USDA Economic Research Service data for 2007, accessed August 17, 2017 at https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses.aspx#25988 .

FAO Global Land Cover SHARE database, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/216144/icode/ accessed August 17, 2017.

Simon [ 85 , pp. 596–597].

The Energy Crisis: A Humane Solution, available September 1, 2017 at https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/BP_1978_1.pdf .

The full unedited passage from [ 2 ] is: “The assumption dropped is that there exists “an exhaustible natural resource …a fixed stock of oil to divide between two [or more] periods” (Stiglitz, 1976). There is no such thing. The total mineral in the earth is an irrelevant non-binding constraint. If expected finding-development costs exceed the expected net revenues, investment dries up, and the industry disappears. Whatever is left in the ground is unknown, probably unknowable, but surely unimportant; a geological fact of no economic interest.”

Huber and Mills [ 48 , p. 181].

“By definition, we must at some point achieve a sustainable energy economy or we will run out of fossil fuels to burn and civilization will collapse. Given that we must get off fossil fuels anyway and that virtually all scientists agree that dramatically increasing atmospheric and oceanic carbon levels is insane, the faster we achieve sustainability, the better.” [ 70 ] “I think there are really two fundamental paths. History is going to bifurcate along two directions. One path is we stay on Earth forever, and then there will be some eventual extinction event. I do not have an immediate doomsday prophecy, but eventually, history suggests, there will be some doomsday event. The alternative is to become a space-bearing civilization and a multi-planetary species, which I hope you would agree is the right way to go.” [ 69 ].

Simon [ 85 , p. 172].

Matt Ridley: http://www.rationaloptimist.com and author of The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves .

Also Energy Information Administration International Energy Statistics for “Crude Oil Proved Reserves” accessed August 17, 2017 at https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/ .

(Adjective) Merriam-Webster dictionary, accessed August 9, 2017 at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/renewable .

(Adjective) Dictionary.com accessed August 9, 2017 at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/renewable and http://www.dictionary.com/browse/renew .

See Global Footprint Network: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/ .

“Plotting the recoded land cover statistics calculated for this study (Table 10) and data product resolution (Table 2) suggests a correlation between spatial resolution and land cover percentages (Fig. 8). The best fit trend-line for tree cover suggests a linear relationship with an R2= 0.996. For the shrub cover/herbaceous class the correlation with a linear trend is not as good, R2= 0.728. The trend suggests that coarse resolution imagery will tend to underestimate the amount of tree cover and potentially overestimate the amount of shrub cover/herbaceous cover.” [ 15 ].

The full quote from [ 47 ] is “A third type of transient growth is that represented by Curve III in Figure 1. Here, the quantity grows exponentially for a while. Then the growth rate diminishes until the quantity reaches one or more maxima, and then undergoes a negative-exponential decline back to zero. This is the type of growth curve that must be followed in the exploitation of any exhaustible resource such as coal or oil, or deposits of metallic ores.”

A bell curve is more formally described as the normal distribution that is symmetric about the middle point.

The peak oil extraction rate in 1970 when not including extraction from Alaska was 3.4 billion BBL. The peak extraction rate in 1970 when including extraction from Alaska was 3.5 billion BBL. Data for crude oil from EIA Monthly Energy Review, Table 3.1 Petroleum Overview, release date July 28, 2015.

BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2016) by reducing the reported oil extraction rate of 48,056 MMBBL/day to 45,000 MMBBL/day to subtract approximately 3000 MMBBL/day of natural gas liquids from the total.

“Crude oil and lease condensate” as reported by the Energy Information Administration International Energy Statistics beta website: https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?pa=000gfs0000000000000000000000000000vg&c=4100000002000060000000000000g000200000000000000001&tl_id=5-A&vs=~~~~INTL.58-1-WORL-TBPD.A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~INTL.57-1-WORL-TBPD.A&cy=2014&vo=0&v=T&start=1980&end=2016&s=INTL.57-1-WORL-TBPD.A .

Meadows et al. [ 65 , p. 48].

Presentation at Smithsonian Institution in honor of the 40th Anniversary of the book The Limits to Growth , Washington DC, February 29, 2012.

“…critics are reduced to saying that all the evidence of history is merely “temporary” and must reverse course “sometime,” which is the sort of statement that is outside the canon of ordinary science.” Julian Simon (1996) [ 85 ].

Simon uses the word “cosmos” instead of universe [ 85 , pp. 596–597].

Meadows et al. [ 65 , pp. 205–206].

“The Energy Crisis: A Humane Solution” https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/BP_1978_1.pdf .

Remarks Prepared by. Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman, United States Atomic Energy Commission, For Delivery At the Founders’ Day Dinner, National Association of Science Writers. September 16, 1954, New York, New York.

“Connally Hot Oil Act of 1935, Texas State Historical Association website accessed December 12, 2019 at: https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mlc03 .

Here I use the “West” as the Western Civilization in the context as discussed by Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” anticipated for the post-Cold War era where “The conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating civilizations.” [ 49 , 50 ]. The West is largely the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and Australia with Western Christian, as opposed to Orthodox Christian, history.

Simon [ 85 , p. 26].

All prices stated and in Fig. 3.1 are in real 2015 U.S. dollars.

Yergin [ 99 , pp. 24–25].

Smil [ 87 , pp. 230–232].

Using data from [ 34 ], power from oil extraction increased at 7.0%/year from 1880 to 1945 and 7.7%/year from 1946 to 1973.

The OPEC Gulf Six nations (Iran, Iraq, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar) raise their posted prices for oil from $5.12 to $11.65 per barrel [ 57 ]. Prices had been rising during the previous several years, but this was the largest single increase.

Mitchell [ 66 , pp. 178–179].

“But tell me, is it sensible to talk the way so many people talk about the oil industry. The way I interpret them is they say the whole history of oil is divided into two periods: from 1859 when oil was first discovered in Titusville, Pennsylvania to 1973 and from 1973 to 1978. Conceivably that could be true, but it seems to show a very shortsighted point of view and a lack of perspective to divide all of 120 years of history into two parts, one 115 years long and one 5 years long, and say “We know that there has been a fundamental change.” Maybe, but if we allowed the market to work, if there were such a fundamental change that would show up in the form of a change in the price pattern and in a change in the incentives to people to find, exploit, and use oil.” [ 36 ].

U.S. Disposable income (defined for all Americans) is equal to total income minus personal taxes.

Yergin [ 99 , pp. 309–314; 316–319].

Oil consumption was 2 billion BBL/year in 1949 increasing to 6 billion BBL/year in 1973. Oil prices varied from 15 to 21 $2015/BBL.

Annual oil consumption varied from 5 to 7 billion BBL/year.

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/24/538391386/despite-climate-change-setbacks-al-gore-comes-down-on-the-side-of-hope , accessed September 3, 2017.

Data in this paragraph from Smil [ 87 , pp. 255–256].

Simon [ 85 , p. 30].

“Energy Innovation Why We Need It and How to Get It”, white paper downloaded from https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Investing-in-Energy-Innovation on September 3, 2017. Direct url is https://www.gatesnotes.com/-/media/Files/Energy/Energy_Innovation_Nov_30_2015.pdf?la=en&hash=6EAE95501FB01629D4817599F0636B0CFB12378B .

https://fuelingusforward.com/ accessed August 2, 2017.

Per Elon Musk’s address at the 2017 Summer meeting of the National Governors Association. “Here’s Elon Musk’s Plan to Power the U.S. on Solar Energy”, https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-usa accessed February 3, 2020.

Epstein [ 31 , p. 48].

West [ 96 , p. 236].

Blog of Stephen Law, “Problem of Induction explained simply …(from my book The Philosophy Gym),” October 12, 2012 at: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/problem-of-induction-explained-simply.html .

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary , accessed July 18, 2017.

“Scana stops work on partially built V.C. Summer Nuclear Station as estimates of cost to finish it rise to $25 billion,” Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/scana-halts-south-carolina-nuclear-power-project-1501524763 (accessed July 31, 2107 4:02 pm ET).

Intermittent : (1) coming and going at intervals: not continuous, (2) appearing and disappearing seasonally (Merriam-Webster.com). intermittent : stopping or ceasing for a time; alternately ceasing and beginning again (Dictionary.com).

Epstein [ 31 , p. 50].

Appointed by President Trump in 2017 as a senior adviser appointed to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, former employee of Fueling U.S. Forward ( https://fuelingusforward.com/ and policy director for the Institute for Energy Research from 2013 to 2016 [ 71 ]. Quotes from BBC Interview January 8, 2014 accessed July 11, 2017 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlX5ognB9sA .

“The intensity of the Sun varies along with the 11-year sunspot cycle. When sunspots are numerous the solar constant is high (about 1367 W/m 2 ); when sunspots are scarce the value is low (about 1365 W/m 2 ). Eleven years isn’t the only “beat,” however. The solar constant can fluctuate by 0.1% over days and weeks as sunspots grow and dissipate. The solar constant also drifts by 0.2–0.6% over many centuries, according to scientists who study tree rings.” https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/17jan_solcon , accessed September 3, 2017.

Variable : able or apt to vary; subject to variation or changes “variable winds” (Merriam-Webster.com). variable : apt or liable to vary or change; changeable (Dictionary.com).

See Table 4.4 “Natural Gas in Underground Storage” in the Monthly Energy Review of the Energy Information Administration.

The other two executive departments that Rick Perry stated he would eliminate if elected preside were those of Commerce and Education.

Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability, accessible December 31, 2017 at https://energy.gov/downloads/download-staff-report-secretary-electricity-markets-and-reliability . Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule, Docket No. RM17-3-000, Agency: Department of Energy. Action: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. September 28, 2017.

Naureen S Malik Mark Chediak, and Jim Polson, “Fate of $700 Billion Power Trade Hinges on Trump Buzzword,” Bloomberg , December 6, 2017 at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-06/fate-of-700-billion-power-trade-hinges-on-one-trump-buzzword .

Jody Freeman and Joseph Goffman, “Rick Perry’s Anti-Market Plan to Help Coal,” Op-Ed in The New York Times , October 25, 2017.

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/OCSNCOE/OCS%20Investigation%20Reports/Macondo%20-%20DWH%20Reports/DWH%20ROI%20USCG%20Vol%20I%20Redacted%20Final.pdf?ver=2017-10-05-072821-053

Meadows et al. [ 65 , p. 4].

Epstein [ 31 , p. 209].

p. 30 of [ 31 ].

Simon [ 85 , pp. 382–383].

Quotes from [ 31 ] in this paragraph are on p. 184.

Alan Cowell, “After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves,” New York Times , October 31, 1992, available December 31, 2017 at http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html .

For example, the Renewable Fuels Standard enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

World Health Organization, “Household air pollution and health,” May 8, 2018 at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health .

“U.S. Formally Begins To Leave The Paris Climate Agreement,” All Things Considered, National Public Radio November 4, 2019 at: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/773474657/u-s-formally-begins-to-leave-the-paris-climate-agreement .

Story on fast-tracking coal power plant permits is by Kelly Shannon, “Perry’s fast-track order derailed,” February 20, 2007, Plainview Daily Herald , accessed December 31, 2017 at http://www.myplainview.com/news/article/Perry-s-fast-track-order-derailed-8660632.php .

ERCOT (2008) Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) Transmission Optimization Study, April 2, 2008, available on September 22 at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0914/ML091420467.pdf .

The transmission line costs are included in the bills of all ERCOT customers at an anticipated cost of 4–5 $/month [ 42 ].

WWF (2011) The Energy Report: 100% Renewable Energy by 2050 , p. 13.

Epstein [ 31 , p. 39].

Website of Power Up Gambia, http://powerupgambia.org/about/story/ , accessed September 14, 2017.

Secretary of Energy in response to a story that a young woman from a[n African] village told him that electricity was important to her not only because it would free her from having to read by the light of a fire with choking fumes, but also from the standpoint of sexual assault [ 78 ].

Wallace Jr., Howard D., Smithsonian (2016), http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/rural-electrification , accessed September 16, 2017.

John Mathews, professor at the Macquarie Graduate School of Management at Macquarie University, December 23, 2015, chinadialogue.net, https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/8509-Let-them-eat-solar-panels .

John Dizard, “Mobisol’s rescue does not assure success in Africa,” Financial Times , September 12, 2019 at: https://www.ft.com/content/d5d667b3-b45b-3870-8443-fe21d669f6d6 . The 12 MW of solar installed by Mobisol come from its website, https://plugintheworld.com/ , accessed December 7, 2019. An Engie press release on September 3, 2019 summarizes its acquisition of Mobisol, available December 7, 2019 at: https://www.engie.com/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2020-01/engie-mobisol-v4-en.pdf .

The Challenges Group, “Time for solar PV sector to find alternative ways to power remote communities,” on Medium June 21, 2019 at: https://medium.com/the-challenges-group/after-mobisol-its-time-for-africa-s-solar-pv-sector-to-find-alternative-ways-to-power-communities-2c80db308dae .

OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Epstein [ 31 , pp. 48–49].

Unobtainium is pronounced un-ub-tain-ee-um.

http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Unobtanium , accessed September 13, 2017.

The unobtainium joke is also referenced at http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Unobtanium .

Bryce [ 13 , p. 235].

Robert Bryce. All-renewable energy in California? Sorry, land-use calculations say it’s not going to happen, LA Times , August 21, 2018 at http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-bryce-renewables-california-20180821-story.html .

By circumscribed, I mean the area that would be enclosed by a polygon if one were to draw a line from one turbine to another such that there are no wind turbines outside of the polygon. Due to varied and unique layouts of wind turbines within wind farms, the actual total project area is not fundamentally derived using the purely geometrical circumscribed boundary, but I have used the concept as an approximative idea.

Huber and Mills [ 48 , p. 165].

Huber and Mills [ 48 , p. 167].

Huber and Mills [ 48 , p. 180].

Big Wind, Big Questions, Texas Parks and Wildlife television series, Program 2513. August 4, 2010: https://youtu.be/N6sx-dmQlnU ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceCwBTXFuC8 .

Are Songbirds the Forgotten Wind Power Victim? Conservation , Conservation This Week, September 23, 2014 viewed at: http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2014/09/are-songbirds-the-forgotten-wind-power-victim/ .

“Clean coal” is sometimes used as a term for coal-fired power plants that are designed to capture a large percentage of the carbon dioxide emissions before they reach the atmosphere, and other criteria pollutants also tend to be removed from the exhaust gases.

The climate impacts of methane emissions, April 2012 at: https://www.edf.org/climate-impacts-methane-emissions .

Matt McGrath, California methane leak “largest in US history,” BBC News, February 25, 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35659947 .

See website of the Environmental Defense Fund: http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2015/12/10/infrared-camera-reveals-huge-wafting-cloud-of-methane-over-californias-aliso-canyon/ . Also see Environmental Defense Fund, December 23, 2015, New Footage Reveals First Aerial View of Methane Leak Polluting Los Angeles County, https://www.edf.org/media/new-footage-reveals-first-aerial-view-methane-leak-polluting-los-angeles-county and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exfJ8VPQDTY&feature=youtu.be .

Steven Mufson, “A blowout turned an Ohio natural gas well into a methane ‘super-emitter’,” The Washington Examiner , December 16, 2019 available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/a-blowout-turned-an-ohio-gas-well-into-a-methane-super-emitter/2019/12/16/fcbdf622-1f9e-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html .

Oxford English Dictionary, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/subsidy , accessed September 4, 2017.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy , accessed September 4, 2017.

“This is usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, who wrote in a 1789 letter that ‘Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.’ However, The Yale Book of Quotations quotes ‘Tis impossible to be sure of any thing but Death and Taxes,’ from Christopher Bullock, The Cobler of Preston (1716). The YBQ also quotes ‘Death and Taxes, they are certain,’ from Edward Ward, The Dancing Devils (1724).” from http://freakonomics.com/2011/02/17/quotes-uncovered-death-and-taxes/ on October 28, 2017.

Devin Henry, Grassley: Trump will attack wind energy “over my dead body,” The Hill , August 31, 2016 at http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/293924-grassley-trump-will-attack-wind-energy-over-my-dead-body .

“After Three Decades, Tax Credit for Ethanol Expires,” The New York Times , January 1, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/business/energy-environment/after-three-decades-federal-tax-credit-for-ethanol-expires.html?mcubz=0 accessed August 20, 2017.

A severance tax is one imposed on the removal of natural resources. The severance tax rates for Texas are listed by the Texas Railroad Commission, http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/publications-and-notices/texas-severance-tax-incentives-past-and-present/ , accessed September 6, 2017.

An ad valorem tax is a tax whose amount is based on the value of a transaction, typically applied at the time of the transaction.

Wyoming Department of Revenue, http://revenue.wyo.gov/mineral-tax-division/severance -tax-filing-information and https://0ebaeb71-a-84cef9ff-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/wyo.gov/ wy-dor/SeveranceTaxRates.pdf?atta chauth=ANoY7crI4hXuewCP1XQDgmlaa2z6QO2GkGqRo3oeaO7BFMLgJBtBavl0Geb5KZlx35Jndr5tGK6nocLxjNaf0ljYZuuJALX2_ntyXMqYmug1E5yCEhvph1UnzRLO8VFQYUIZsoay0bJnJpo4xpTB59ixpsbaRm884JC eO6j-PsZYk8mUybrwuZ3rv_YeoKHl75Fm7ZkhQ3u9P3t0Qgisj3wQtUtapBQGPQ%3D%3D&attredirects=0 , accessed September 6, 2017.

WindWaste: https://windwaste.com/ .

FracFocus website, “Hydraulic fracturing is not new. The first commercial application of hydraulic fracturing as a well treatment technology designed to stimulate the production of oil or gas likely occurred in either the Hugoton field of Kansas in 1946 or near Duncan Oklahoma in 1949,” visited April 28, 2018: https://fracfocus.org/hydraulic-fracturing-how-it-works/history-hydraulic-fracturing .

AP (2016) “Oklahoma governor urges Christians to pray for oil industry,” http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/10/oklahoma-governor-urges-christians-to-pray-for-oil-industry.html .

Baker Hughes North American Rig count, accessed September 2017 at http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=79687&p=irol-reportsother .

The tax reduction applies to the “…first 120 consecutive calendar months beginning on the first day of production, or until the cumulative value of the tax reduction equals 50 percent of the drilling and completion costs incurred for the well, whichever occurs first.” Texas Tax Code Chapter 201, Section 201.057. Accessed July 17, 2017 at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TX/htm/TX.201.htm .

Mcf =  thousand cubic feet of natural gas. Natural gas prices at Henry Hub (benchmark price for North America) typically range from 2 to 6 $/Mcf, but much of the time from 2004 to 2008 prices were greater than $6/Mcf.

Travis Fisher and Alex Fitzsimmons, Institute for Energy Research (September 19, 2013), accessed July 20, 2017 at https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/wind-ptc-threatens-grid-reliability/ .

https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/11/stories/1060057185 .

Nuclear Energy Institute, “Congress Passes Nuclear Tax Credit in Big Boost for New Construction,” February 9, 2018, at: https://www.nei.org/news/2018/congress-passes-nuclear-production-tax-credit .

Hancock, Laura (2017), Legislators kill wind tax bill, Casper Star Tribune , available on September 26, 2017 at: http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/legislators-kill-wind-tax-bill/article_2cce36b6-b8e7-51e2-b4cf-3add20f8719a.html .

Such as the sage brush grouse, a ground bird that avoids wind turbines, is prominent in Wyoming, and a species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided in 2015 not to list as endangered.

This fraction is taking “Energy Goods and Services” spending from the Bureau of Economic Analysis Annual Personal Consumption Expenditures Table 2.3.5 and dividing by U.S. GDP.

Your Guide to the Bitter Debate Over 100% Renewable Energy: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/100-renewable-energy-debate .

Joe Romm, Dear scientists: Stop bickering about a 100% renewable power grid and start making it happen: https://thinkprogress.org/a-carbon-free-grid-is-unstoppable-so-why-did-a-nasty-debate-about-it-just-erupt-fa2bf7a6827a/ , accessed June 21, 2017.

June 22, 2017: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/100-renewable-energy-debate .

July 12, 2017: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/an-interview-with-mark-jacobson-about-100-percent-renewable-energy .

From PNAS website, http://www.pnas.org/site/authors/authorfaq.xhtml , accessed August 13, 2017:

“Submissions must be:

original scientific research of exceptional importance,

work that appears to an NAS member to be of particular importance, and

intelligible to a broad scientific audience.”

Jacobson (2018) FAQs and Withdrawal of Lawsuit against Clack,” downloaded Feb. 23, 2018 from http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/18-02-FAQs.pdf .

Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J.A.: Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Business, New York (2012)

Google Scholar  

Adelman, M.A.: Mineral depletion, with special reference to petroleum. The Review of Economics and Statistics 72 , 1–10 (1990). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2109733

Article   Google Scholar  

Adelman, M.A.: The real oil problem. Regulation pp. 17–21 (2004)

Aissaoui, A.: Fiscal break-even prices revisited: What more could they tell us about OPEC policy intent? Tech. Rep. 8–9 (2012)

Alvarez, R.A., Pacala, S.W., Winebrake, J.J., Chameides, W.L., Hamburg, S.P.: Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (17), 6435–6440 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1202407109 . http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435

Barbose, G., Darghouth, N.: Tracking the sun pricing and design trends for distributed photovoltaic systems in the united states, 2019 edition. Tech. rep., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (2019). https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun

Bashmakov, I.: Three laws of energy transitions. Energy Policy 35 , 3583–3594 (2007)

Bauerlein, V., Gold, R.: South Carolina seeks ways to salvage nuclear project (2017). https://www.wsj.com/articles/south-carolina-seeks-ways-to-salvage-nuclear-project-1502125431

Blatt, D.: We must end oil and gas tax breaks to save Oklahoma communities (2017). http://okpolicy.org/must-end-oil-gas-tax-breaks-save-oklahoma-communities/ . Accessed September 3, 2017

Bolinger, M., Seel, J., Robson, D.: Utility-scale solar: Empirical trends in project technology, cost, performance, and PPA pricing in the United States – 2019 edition. Tech. rep., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (2019). https://emp.lbl.gov/utility-scale-solar

BP: Bp statistical review of world energy, 2016 (2016). http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/downloads.htm . Accessed August, 2016

BP: Bp statistical review of world energy, 2019 (2019). http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/downloads.htm . Accessed August, 2019

Bryce, R.: Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future. Perseus Books (2010)

Chu, S.: Letter from secretary steven chu to energy department employees. Tech. rep. (2013). https://energy.gov/articles/letter-secretary-steven-chu-energy-department-employees . Accessed August 3, 2017

Churches, C.E., Wampler, P.J., Sun, W., Smith, A.J.: Evaluation of forest cover estimates for Haiti using supervised classification of Landsat data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 30 , 203–216 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2014.01.020 . http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303243414000300

Chutchian, M.: Texas utility giant EFH poised to exit bankruptcy after three years. Forbes (2017). https://www.forbes.com/sites/debtwire/2017/02/16/texas-utility-giant-efh-poised-to-exit-bankruptcy-after-three-years/#37f4817f3a6b . Accessed July 20, 2017

Clack, C.T.M., Qvist, S.A., Apt, J., Bazilian, M., Brandt, A.R., Caldeira, K., Davis, S.J., Diakov, V., Handschy, M.A., Hines, P.D.H., Jaramillo, P., Kammen, D.M., Long, J.C.S., Morgan, M.G., Reed, A., Sivaram, V., Sweeney, J., Tynan, G.R., Victor, D.G., Weyant, J.P., Whitacre, J.F.: Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (26), 6722–6727 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610381114 . http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.abstract

NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation): Special report: Accommodating high levels of variable generation (2009). www.nerc.com/files/ivgtf_report_041609.pdf . Accessed July 21, 2017

Delucchi, M.A., Jacobson, M.Z.: Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies. ENERGY POLICY 39 (3), 1170–1190 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.045

Demos, T.: Don’t mess with texas: State politicians could derail the carefully constructed TXU deal, says Fortune’s Telis demos. Fortune (2007). http://archive.fortune.com/2007/03/08/news/companies/txu_lawmakers.fortune/index.htm?section=money_lates

Denholm, P., Hand, M., Jackson, M., Ong, S.: Land-use requirements of modern wind power plants in the united states. Tech. rep., National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2009). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45834.pdf . Accessed August 6, 2017

DOE: Quadrennial energy review, transforming the nation’s electricity system: The second installment of the QER. Tech. rep., U.S. Department of Energy (2017). https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/f34/Quadrennial%20Energy%20Review--Second%20Installment%20%28Full%20Report%29.pdf . Accessed February 10, 2017

DOE: Staff report to the secretary on electricity markets and reliability. Tech. rep., U.S. Department of Energy (2017). https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/08/f36/Staff%20Report%20on%20Electricity%20Markets%20and%20Reliability_0.pdf . Accessed September 3, 2017

Doig, A., Adow, M.: Low-carbon Africa: Leapfrogging to a green future. Tech. rep., Christian Aid (2011). http://www.christianaid.org.uk/resources/policy/climate/low-carbon-africa.aspx . Online; accessed September 16, 2017

Dorn, J.G.: Eco-economy indicators, solar power, solar cell production jumps 50 percent in 2007. Tech. rep., Earth Policy Institute (2007). http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/xls/indicator12_2007_7.xls . Main website: http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C47/solar_power_2007

EENews: Ad war putting face on texas power plant debate. E&E News (February 16) (2007). https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/51697 . Accessed July 11, 2017

EIA: Monthly energy review (2012)

Energy, R.: Rystad energy annual review of global recoverable oil resources: Saudi Arabia adds oil resources ahead of IPO. Rystad Energy website (2017). https://www.rystadenergy.com/NewsEvents/PressReleases/2017-annual-oil-recoverable-resource-review . Accessed August 4, 2017

DOE (Department of Energy): The importance of flexible electricity supply, solar integration series. 1 of 3. Tech. rep., DOE (2011)

EPA: “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” and “Tennessee Valley Authority” “Kingston” coal ash release site, project completion fact sheet. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/04/11015836.pdf (2014). Online; accessed 22-April-2018

Epstein, A.: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Portfolio (2014)

Erickson, W.P., Wolfe, M.M., Bay, K.J., Johnson, D.H., Gehring, J.L.: A comprehensive analysis of small-passerine fatalities from collision with turbines at wind energy facilities. PLoS ONE 9 (9), e107,491 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107491 . http://dx.doi.org/10.13712Fjournal.pone.0107491

Fagan, M.: Sheikh Yamani predicts price crash as age of oil ends. UK Telegraph (2000). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1344832/Sheikh-Yamani-predicts-price-crash-as-age-of-oil-ends.html . Accessed August 3, 2017

Fizaine, F., Court, V.: Energy expenditure, economic growth, and the minimum EROI of society. Energy Policy 95 , 172 – 186 (2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.039 . http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302087

Francis, P.: Laudato si’ – encyclical letter on care for our common home, Francis I (2015). http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html . Accessed August 14, 2017

Friedman, M.: The energy crisis: A humane solution (1978). https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/objects/57283/the-energy-crisis-a-humane-solution?ctx=ee796946-b436-4b49-a567-762daa0fcf71&idx=3 . Milton Friedman Speaks. Lecture sponsored by Bank of America in San Francisco, CA, February 10, 1978. The transcript of this speech was also published in The Economics of Freedom . Milton Friedman Speaks was a series of 15 lectures, including question and answer sessions, given by Friedman between 1977 and 1978 that formed the basis for the Free to Choose television series. URL for transcript accessed August 22, 2017.

Fu, R., Feldman, D., Margolis, R., Woodhouse, M., Ardani, K.: U.S. solar photovoltaic system cost benchmark: Q1 2017, nrel/tp-6a20-68925. Tech. rep., National Renewable ENergy Laboratory (2017). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf . Online; accessed September 16, 2017

WWF (World Wildlife Fund): The energy report: 100% renewable energy by 2050 (2011). https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/the-energy-report . Accessed July 21, 2017

Garrett, T.J.: Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of car- bon dioxide? Climatic Change 104 (3), 437–455 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9717-9

Garrett, T.J.: Long-run evolution of the global economy: 1. physical basis. Earth’s Future 2 (3), 127–151 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013EF000171

Griffiths, B.W., Gülen, G., Dyer, J.S., Spence, D.B., King, C.W.: Federal financial support for electricity generation technologies, white paper utei/2016-11-2. http://energy.utexas.edu/the-full-cost-of-electricity-fce/ (2017). White Paper UTEI/2016-11-2, one in a series of white papers for the Full Costs of Electricity Project of the Energy Institute of the University of Texas at Austin

Griffiths, B.W., Gülen, G., Dyer, J.S., Spence, D.B., King, C.W.: State level financial support for electricity generation technologies: An analysis of texas & California, white paper utei/2017-xx-yy. http://energy.utexas.edu/the-full-cost-of-electricity-fce/ (2017). White Paper UTEI/2017-XX-YY, one in a series of white papers for the Full Costs of Electricity Project of the Energy Institute of the University of Texas at Austin

Handschy, M.A., Rose, S., Apt, J.: Is it always windy somewhere? occurrence of low-wind-power events over large areas. Renewable Energy 101 , 1124–1130 (2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.10.004 . http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148116308680

Hertwich, E.G., Gibon, T., Bouman, E.A., Arvesen, A., Suh, S., Heath, G.A., Bergesen, J.D., Ramirez, A., Vega, M.I., Shi, L.: Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2014). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312753111 . http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/02/1312753111.abstract

Hubbert, M.K.: Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels. Tech. rep., Shell Development Company, Exploration and Research Division (1956). Presented before the Spring Meeting of the Southern District Division of Petroleum, American Petroleum Institute, Plaza Hotel, San Antonio, Texas, March 7-8-9, 1956

Hubbert, M.K.: Degree of advancement of petroleum exploration in united states. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 51 (11), 2207–2227 (1967)

Hubbert, M.K.: Testimony for the national energy conservation policy act of 1974, hearings at the hearings before the subcommittee on the environment of the committee on interior and insular affairs house of representatives. Tech. rep. (1974)

Huber, P.W., Mills, M.P.: The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy. Basic Books, New York (2005)

Huntington, S.P.: The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs 72 (3), 22–49 (1993). http://www.jstor.org/stable/20045621

Huntington, S.P.: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY USA (2011). ISBN-13: 978-1451628975

IEA: Trends 2016 in photovoltaic applications, 21st edition. Tech. Rep. IEA PVPS T1-30:2016, International Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2016)

Inman, M.: The Oracle of Oil: A Maverick Geologist’s QUest for a Sustainable Future. W. W. Norton & Company, New York, NY (2016)

Jacobson, M.Z., Delucchi, M.A.: Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. ENERGY POLICY 39 (3), 1154–1169 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.040

Jacobson, M.Z., Delucchi, M.A., Cameron, M.A., Frew, B.A.: Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (49), 15,060–15,065 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510028112 . http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15060.abstract

Jacobson, M.Z., Delucchi, M.A., Cameron, M.A., Frew, B.A.: The united states can keep the grid stable at low cost with 100% clean, renewable energy in all sectors despite inaccurate claims. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (26), E5021–E5023 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708069114 . http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/E5021.short

Jarvis, A.J., Jarvis, S.J., Hewitt, C.N.: Resource acquisition, distribution and end-use efficiencies and the growth of industrial society. Earth System Dynamics 6 (2), 689–702 (2015). https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-689-2015 . http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/6/689/2015/

Jefferson, M.: Shell scenarios: What really happened in the 1970s and what may be learned for current world prospects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79 (1), 186–197 (2012)

Jevons, W.S.: The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal Mines, second edition, revised edn. Macmillan and Co., London (1866). Kessinger Legacy Reprints

King, C.W.: Comparing world economic and net energy metrics, part 3: Macroeconomic historical and future perspectives. Energies 8 (11), 12,348 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3390/en81112348 . http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/11/12348

Kopits, S.: Oil: What price can America afford? (research note). Tech. rep., Douglass-Westwood (2009)

Littlefield, J.A., Marriott, J., Schivley, G.A., Skone, T.J.: Synthesis of recent ground-level methane emission measurements from the U.S. natural gas supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 148 , 118–126 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.101 . http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617301166

Loftis, R.L., Souder, E.: Airing out a fight on coal power. The Dallas Morning News (2007)

Maloney, P.: Panda temple bankruptcy could chill new gas plant buildout in ERCOT market. Utility Dive (2017). http://www.utilitydive.com/news/panda-temple-bankruptcy-could-chill-new-gas-plant-buildout-in-ercot-market/442582/ . Accessed May 15, 2017

Meadows, D.: It is too late for sustainable development. In: Perspectives on Limits to Growth : Challenges to Building a Sustainable Planet. a symposium hosted by the Smithsonian Institution and the Club of Rome, Washington, DC (2012)

Meadows, D.H., Randers, J., Meadows, D.L.: Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont (2004)

Mitchell, T.: Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil. Verso, London and New York (2013)

Mooney, C.: Stanford professor files $10 million lawsuit against scientific journal over clean energy claims (2017)

Muller, N.Z.: Boosting GDP growth by accounting for the environment. Science 345 (6199), 873–874 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253506 . http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/873

Musk, E.: Making humans a multi-planetary species. New Space 5 (2), 46–61 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1089/space.2017.29009.emu

Musk, E.: Master plan, part deux (2016). https://www.tesla.com/blog/masterplanpartdeux . Accessed July 22, 2016

Northey, H.: Fossil fuel promoter settles into renewable energy office. E&E News (2017). https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060057185 . Accessed July 11, 2017

Nysveen, P.M.: United states now holds more recoverable oil than Saudi Arabia. Rystad Energy website (2016). https://www.rystadenergy.com/NewsEvents/PressReleases/united-states-now-holds-more-oil-reserves-than-saudi-arabia . Accessed August 4, 2017

{OECD}, {Climate Policy Initiative}: Climate finance in 2013–14 and the USD 100 billion goal: A report by the OECD in collaboration with climate policy initiative. http://www.oecd.org/env/climate-finance-in-2013-14-and-the-usd-100-billion-goal-9789264249424-en.htm (2015). Online; accessed September 16, 2017

Pandey, S., Gautam, R., Houweling, S., van der Gon, H.D., Sadavarte, P., Borsdorff, T., Hasekamp, O., Landgraf, J., Tol, P., van Kempen, T., Hoogeveen, R., van Hees, R., Hamburg, S.P., Maasakkers, J.D., Aben, I.: Satellite observations reveal extreme methane leakage from a natural gas well blowout. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (52), 26,376–26,381 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908712116 . https://www.pnas.org/content/116/52/26376

Perkinis, J.: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Plume Press, New York (2004)

TCPA: High-cost natural gas tax rate incentive study. Tech. rep., Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (2014). https://www.comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/whitepapers/high-cost-natural-gas/high-cost-natural-gas.pdf . Accessed March 10, 2017

Ratcliffe, R., Babineck, M.: Group launches ’coal is filthy’ ads against TXU. Houston Chronicle (2007). http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Group-launches-Coal-is-Filthy-ads-against-TXU-1801939.php

Reuters: U.S. energy chief says fossil fuels could help prevent sexual assaults in Africa. Reuters (2017). http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-energy-assaults/u-s-energy-chief-says-fossil-fuels-could-help-prevent-sexual-assaults-in-africa-idUSKBN1D22U7 . newblock Accessed November 2, 2017

Ridley, M.: Why renewables keep running out. The Rational Optimist - blog (2011). http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/why-renewables-keep-running-out/ . Accessed August 4, 2017

Ridley, M.: Why most resources don’t run out. The Rational Optimist blog (2014). http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/why-most-resources-dont-run-out/ . Accessed August 3, 2017

Ridley, M.: The world’s resources aren’t running out. Wall Street Journal (2014). https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-worlds-resources-arent-running-out-1398469459

Roberts, T., Weikmans, R.: Roadmap to where? is the ‘$100 billion by 2020’ pledge from Copenhagen still realistic? https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2016/10/20/roadmap-to-where-is-the-100-billion-by-2020-pledge-from-copenhagen-still-realistic/ (2016). Online; accessed September 17, 2017

Rutledge, D.: Estimating long-term world coal production with logit and probit transforms. International Journal of Coal Geology 85 (1), 23 – 33 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2010.10.012 . http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166516210002144

Siegel, A.: Energy bookshelf: A power hungry gushing of lies (2010). http://getenergysmartnow.com/2010/08/16/energy-bookshelf-a-power-hungry-gushing-of-lies/

Simon, J.L.: The Ultimate Resource 2, revised edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J (1996)

Smil, V.: Energy at the Crossroads: Global Perspectives and Uncertainties. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (2003)

Book   Google Scholar  

Smil, V.: Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (2008)

Smil, V.: Power density primer: Understanding the spatial dimension of the unfolding transition to renewable electricity generation (part i - definitions). http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density-primer.pdf (2010). Online; accessed August 5, 2015

Smil, V.: Power Density: A Key to Understanding Energy Sources and Uses. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (2015)

Stecklein, J.: State senate votes to sunset wind subsidy. EnidNews.com (2017). http://www.enidnews.com/news/state/state-senate-votes-to-sunset-wind-subsidy/article_bb6fcd83-b66e-5d32-87e7-4ed04915790d.html . Accessed September 3, 2017

Swartz, K.E.: Southern co. suspends $7.5b Kemper plant. E&E News (2017). https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060056757/ . Accessed June 28, 2017

Tsao, J., Lewis, N., Crabtree, G.: Solar FAQs, working draft version 2006 Apr 20. Tech. rep. (2006). http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf . Accessed August 3, 2017

Tuttle, D.P., Gülen, G., Hebner, R., King, C.W., Spence, D.B., Andrade, J., Wible, J.A., Baldick, R., Duncan, R.: The history and evolution of the U.S. electricity industry (2016). http://energy.utexas.edu/the-full-cost-of-electricity-fce/ .

Tuttle, D.P., Gülen, G., Hebner, R., King, C.W., Spence, D.B., Andrade, J., Wible, J.A., Baldwick, R., Duncan, R.: The history and evolution of the U.S. electricity industry, white paper utei/2016-05-2. http://energy.utexas.edu/the-full-cost-of-electricity-fce/ (2016). White Paper UTEI/2016-05-2, one in a series of white papers for the Full Costs of Electricity Project of the Energy Institute of the University of Texas at Austin

Wertz, J.: Fallin signs bill to end tax credit that helped fuel Oklahoma’s wind-energy boom. State Impact (2017). https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2017/04/18/fallin-signs-bill-to-end-tax-credit-that-helped-fuel-oklahomas-wind-energy-boom/ . Accessed September 3, 2017

West, G.: Scale The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies. Penguin Press, New York, NY (2017)

Woolston, C.: Energy researcher sues the us national academy of sciences for millions of dollars (2017). http://www.nature.com/news/energy-researcher-sues-the-us-national-academy-of-sciences-for-millions-of-dollars-1.22944

Xu, C., Bell, L.: Worldwide crude oil reserves down, production holds steady. Oil & Gas Journal December 5 (2016). 2442 words

Yergin, D.: The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, & Power. Free Press, New York (1991)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Energy Institute, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Carey W. King

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

King, C.W. (2021). The Energy Narratives: Fossil Fuels Versus Renewables. In: The Economic Superorganism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50295-9_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50295-9_3

Published : 08 October 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-50294-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-50295-9

eBook Packages : Energy Energy (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Renewable Energy vs. Fossil Fuels

To the Editor:

Re “ The Gas Is Greener ,” by Robert Bryce (Op-Ed, June 8), claiming that vast amounts of natural resources are used to produce renewable energy:

Environmental organizations, including America’s largest, the Sierra Club, have been engaging communities across the country to build support for renewable energy projects because the toll that fossil fuels take on our health, economy and climate has been devastating. Especially as technology evolves, it would be a horrible mistake to ignore the tremendous job-creating potential that exists in developing clean energy like wind and solar.

All development projects require careful planning to ensure good stewardship of our environment. Fortunately, there are ample opportunities to plan renewable energy projects “smart from the start” by carefully locating them in areas that avoid sensitive wildlife habitats or important natural and cultural resources.

Seizing the opportunities presented to our country as we make a necessary transition to clean energy will require both cooperation and American ingenuity. Presenting false choices about renewable energy will only distract us from the important task that lies ahead.

VANESSA PIERCE Deputy Director, Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign Washington, June 8, 2011

Robert Bryce’s caricature of renewable energy grossly exaggerates the resource demands of wind power while minimizing those of gas-based electricity.

Farmers and ranchers around the country till fields and graze cattle amid the wind turbines on their land. Each turbine takes up a quarter of an acre. If California used today’s 3-megawatt turbines, it would need an area about the size of Central Park to site 8,500 megawatts of power — hardly equal to 70 Manhattans. And it would create enough power for about 2.5 million California households.

Mr. Bryce also compares the steel demands of wind- and gas-based power. He does not mention gas-based electricity’s share of the 800,000-plus miles of steel pipes used for gas drilling and transporting gas to market.

Wind turbines recover their full life-cycle energy inputs within the first seven months of operation. Gas plants are perpetual energy sinks. It’s not hard to see which is the cleaner energy resource.

PHILIP WARBURG Newton, Mass., June 8, 2011

The writer is the author of the forthcoming book “Harvest the Wind.”

Robert Bryce vastly overstated the amount of land needed for solar and wind power. Solar panels can be placed on rooftops — not requiring new land. More than 100,000 homeowners and businesses around the country have already installed rooftop panels to generate electricity.

Meanwhile, wind turbines, roads and support structures occupy only 2 to 5 percent of a wind farm. The area between the turbines can be used for other purposes, such as farming or ranching.

According to a peer-reviewed Union of Concerned Scientists study I co-wrote, wind and solar could meet 27 percent of America’s electricity needs by 2030 covering 36,600 square miles, including the area between the turbines. That’s only 1 percent of all land area in the United States.

Unlike natural gas, coal or nuclear plants, wind and solar plants don’t produce air or water pollution, global warming emissions or waste products, and use much less water.

STEVE CLEMMER Director of Energy Research Union of Concerned Scientists Yarmouth, Me., June 8, 2011

Robert Bryce is correct to highlight E. F. Schumacher’s dictum that “small is beautiful.” We do not need vast new tracts of land to install solar and wind power. We have acres and acres of buildings that are perfectly situated for rooftop collection systems and “small wind” generation.

Not only does this avoid the disturbance of new land but it also generates the power in the same location as it is consumed, avoiding the need for long-distance transmission, with its inherent power loss and ecological footprint issues. Our society likes to think big, but the solution lies in small.

GUY GEIER Cranbury, N.J., June 8, 2011

Robert Bryce makes some important points but overlooks one of the central benefits of renewable energy sources: they are renewable.

Mr. Bryce’s cost-benefit analysis does not take into account the cost of nonrenewable fuels themselves. For example, natural gas turbines might be cheap to build, but running them requires a constant supply of natural gas, which is costly, and will only become more costly as it becomes more scarce. On the other hand, operating solar panels requires only sunlight.

Regardless, the cost issue is moot. If we rely on nonrenewable energy, we will eventually run out of fuel, at which point we will be forced to construct solar and wind installations anyway. In the end, we will only have postponed the inevitable for a little while, incurring vast economic and environmental costs in the process.

BRIAN SEEVE Boston, June 8, 2011

Create an account

Create a free IEA account to download our reports or subcribe to a paid service.

Global Energy Crisis

How the energy crisis started, how global energy markets are impacting our daily life, and what governments are doing about it

• English English

What is the energy crisis?

Record prices, fuel shortages, rising poverty, slowing economies: the first energy crisis that's truly global.

Energy markets began to tighten in 2021 because of a variety of factors, including the extraordinarily rapid economic rebound following the pandemic. But the situation escalated dramatically into a full-blown global energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The price of natural gas reached record highs, and as a result so did electricity in some markets. Oil prices hit their highest level since 2008. 

Higher energy prices have contributed to painfully high inflation, pushed families into poverty, forced some factories to curtail output or even shut down, and slowed economic growth to the point that some countries are heading towards severe recession. Europe, whose gas supply is uniquely vulnerable because of its historic reliance on Russia, could face gas rationing this winter, while many emerging economies are seeing sharply higher energy import bills and fuel shortages. While today’s energy crisis shares some parallels with the oil shocks of the 1970s, there are important differences. Today’s crisis involves all fossil fuels, while the 1970s price shocks were largely limited to oil at a time when the global economy was much more dependent on oil, and less dependent on gas. The entire word economy is much more interlinked than it was 50 years ago, magnifying the impact. That’s why we can refer to this as the first truly global energy crisis.

Some gas-intensive manufacturing plants in Europe have curtailed output because they can’t afford to keep operating, while in China some have simply had their power supply cut. In emerging and developing economies, where the share of household budgets spent on energy and food is already large, higher energy bills have increased extreme poverty and set back progress towards achieving universal and affordable energy access. Even in advanced economies, rising prices have impacted vulnerable households and caused significant economic, social and political strains.

Climate policies have been blamed in some quarters for contributing to the recent run-up in energy prices, but there is no evidence. In fact, a greater supply of clean energy sources and technologies would have protected consumers and mitigated some of the upward pressure on fuel prices.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine drove European and Asian gas prices to record highs

Evolution of key regional natural gas prices, june 2021-october 2022, what is causing it, disrupted supply chains, bad weather, low investment, and then came russia's invasion of ukraine.

Energy prices have been rising since 2021 because of the rapid economic recovery, weather conditions in various parts of the world, maintenance work that had been delayed by the pandemic, and earlier decisions by oil and gas companies and exporting countries to reduce investments. Russia began withholding gas supplies to Europe in 2021, months ahead of its invasion of Ukraine. All that led to already tight supplies. Russia’s attack on Ukraine greatly exacerbated the situation . The United States and the EU imposed a series of sanctions on Russia and many European countries declared their intention to phase out Russian gas imports completely. Meanwhile, Russia has increasingly curtailed or even turned off its export pipelines. Russia is by far the world’s largest exporter of fossil fuels, and a particularly important supplier to Europe. In 2021, a quarter of all energy consumed in the EU came from Russia. As Europe sought to replace Russian gas, it bid up prices of US, Australian and Qatari ship-borne liquefied natural gas (LNG), raising prices and diverting supply away from traditional LNG customers in Asia. Because gas frequently sets the price at which electricity is sold, power prices soared as well. Both LNG producers and importers are rushing to build new infrastructure to increase how much LNG can be traded internationally, but these costly projects take years to come online. Oil prices also initially soared as international trade routes were reconfigured after the United States, many European countries and some of their Asian allies said they would no longer buy Russian oil. Some shippers have declined to carry Russian oil because of sanctions and insurance risk. Many large oil producers were unable to boost supply to meet rising demand – even with the incentive of sky-high prices – because of a lack of investment in recent years. While prices have come down from their peaks, the outlook is uncertain with new rounds of European sanctions on Russia kicking in later this year.

What is being done?

Pandemic hangovers and rising interest rates limit public responses, while some countries turn to coal.

Some governments are looking to cushion the blow for customers and businesses, either through direct assistance, or by limiting prices for consumers and then paying energy providers the difference. But with inflation in many countries well above target and budget deficits already large because of emergency spending during the Covid-19 pandemic, the scope for cushioning the impact is more limited than in early 2020. Rising inflation has triggered increases in short-term interest rates in many countries, slowing down economic growth. Europeans have rushed to increase gas imports from alternative producers such as Algeria, Norway and Azerbaijan. Several countries have resumed or expanded the use of coal for power generation, and some are extending the lives of nuclear plants slated for de-commissioning. EU members have also introduced gas storage obligations, and agreed on voluntary targets to cut gas and electricity demand by 15% this winter through efficiency measures, greater use of renewables, and support for efficiency improvements. To ensure adequate oil supplies, the IEA and its members responded with the two largest ever releases of emergency oil stocks. With two decisions – on 1 March 2022 and 1 April – the IEA coordinated the release of some 182 million barrels of emergency oil from public stocks or obligated stocks held by industry. Some IEA member countries independently released additional public stocks, resulting in a total of over 240 million barrels being released between March and November 2022.

The IEA has also published action plans to cut oil use with immediate impact, as well as plans for how Europe can reduce its reliance on Russian gas and how common citizens can reduce their energy consumption . The invasion has sparked a reappraisal of energy policies and priorities, calling into question the viability of decades of infrastructure and investment decisions, and profoundly reorientating international energy trade. Gas had been expected to play a key role in many countries as a lower-emitting "bridge" between dirtier fossil fuels and renewable energies. But today’s crisis has called into question natural gas’ reliability.

The current crisis could accelerate the rollout of cleaner, sustainable renewable energy such as wind and solar, just as the 1970s oil shocks spurred major advances in energy efficiency, as well as in nuclear, solar and wind power. The crisis has also underscored the importance of investing in robust gas and power network infrastructure to better integrate regional markets. The EU’s RePowerEU, presented in May 2022 and the United States’ Inflation Reduction Act , passed in August 2022, both contain major initiatives to develop energy efficiency and promote renewable energies. 

The global energy crisis can be a historic turning point

Energy saving tips

1. Heating: turn it down

Lower your thermostat by just 1°C to save around 7% of your heating energy and cut an average bill by EUR 50-70 a year. Always set your thermostat as low as feels comfortable, and wear warm clothes indoors. Use a programmable thermostat to set the temperature to 15°C while you sleep and 10°C when the house is unoccupied. This cuts up to 10% a year off heating bills. Try to only heat the room you’re in or the rooms you use regularly.

The same idea applies in hot weather. Turn off air-conditioning when you’re out. Set the overall temperature 1 °C warmer to cut bills by up to 10%. And only cool the room you’re in.

2. Boiler: adjust the settings

Default boiler settings are often higher than you need. Lower the hot water temperature to save 8% of your heating energy and cut EUR 100 off an average bill.  You may have to have the plumber come once if you have a complex modern combi boiler and can’t figure out the manual. Make sure you follow local recommendations or consult your boiler manual. Swap a bath for a shower to spend less energy heating water. And if you already use a shower, take a shorter one. Hot water tanks and pipes should be insulated to stop heat escaping. Clean wood- and pellet-burning heaters regularly with a wire brush to keep them working efficiently.

3. Warm air: seal it in

Close windows and doors, insulate pipes and draught-proof around windows, chimneys and other gaps to keep the warm air inside. Unless your home is very new, you will lose heat through draughty doors and windows, gaps in the floor, or up the chimney. Draught-proof these gaps with sealant or weather stripping to save up to EUR 100 a year. Install tight-fitting curtains or shades on windows to retain even more heat. Close fireplace and chimney openings (unless a fire is burning) to stop warm air escaping straight up the chimney. And if you never use your fireplace, seal the chimney to stop heat escaping.

4. Lightbulbs: swap them out

Replace old lightbulbs with new LED ones, and only keep on the lights you need. LED bulbs are more efficient than incandescent and halogen lights, they burn out less frequently, and save around EUR 10 a year per bulb. Check the energy label when buying bulbs, and aim for A (the most efficient) rather than G (the least efficient). The simplest and easiest way to save energy is to turn lights off when you leave a room.

5. Grab a bike

Walking or cycling are great alternatives to driving for short journeys, and they help save money, cut emissions and reduce congestion. If you can, leave your car at home for shorter journeys; especially if it’s a larger car. Share your ride with neighbours, friends and colleagues to save energy and money. You’ll also see big savings and health benefits if you travel by bike. Many governments also offer incentives for electric bikes.

6. Use public transport

For longer distances where walking or cycling is impractical, public transport still reduces energy use, congestion and air pollution. If you’re going on a longer trip, consider leaving your car at home and taking the train. Buy a season ticket to save money over time. Your workplace or local government might also offer incentives for travel passes. Plan your trip in advance to save on tickets and find the best route.

7. Drive smarter

Optimise your driving style to reduce fuel consumption: drive smoothly and at lower speeds on motorways, close windows at high speeds and make sure your tires are properly inflated. Try to take routes that avoid heavy traffic and turn off the engine when you’re not moving. Drive 10 km/h slower on motorways to cut your fuel bill by around EUR 60 per year. Driving steadily between 50-90 km/h can also save fuel. When driving faster than 80 km/h, it’s more efficient to use A/C, rather than opening your windows. And service your engine regularly to maintain energy efficiency.

Analysis and forecast to 2026

Fuel report — December 2023

Europe’s energy crisis: Understanding the drivers of the fall in electricity demand

Commentary — 09 May 2023

Where things stand in the global energy crisis one year on

Commentary — 23 February 2023

The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022

Commentary — 16 February 2023

Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022

Policy report — February 2023

Background note on the natural gas supply-demand balance of the European Union in 2023

Report — February 2023

Analysis and forecast to 2025

Fuel report — December 2022

How to Avoid Gas Shortages in the European Union in 2023

A practical set of actions to close a potential supply-demand gap

Flagship report — December 2022

Subscription successful

Thank you for subscribing. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of any IEA newsletter.

• Oil Futures
• Energy-General
• Heating Oil
• Natural Gas
• Company News
• Geopolitics
• Nuclear Power
• Solar Energy
• Hydroelectric
• Renewable Energy
• Geothermal Energy
• Tidal Energy
• Global Warming
• Breaking News
• Premium Articles
• Latest Discussions
• Energy General
• Oil Stocks & Prices
• Other Energy Topics
• OPEC Blends
• Canadian Blends
• U.S. Blends

• 55 mins Venezuela In Complete Blackout, Power To Soon Return
• 5 hours EPA Extends Emergency Waiver for Midwest Gasoline Supply
• 6 hours Drax to Pay £25 Million Following Ofgem Biomass Probe
• 7 hours Oil Prices Drop as OPEC+ Considers Increasing Production in October
• 8 hours Texas to Consider $5.4 Billion Loans for New Natural Gas Plants
• 9 hours Trump Would Repeal Many of Biden’s Clean Energy Policies
• 10 hours Indian Refiner Expects Domestic Fuel Demand to Rise by 5% Annually
• 11 hours Indian State Refining Giant Seeks $3.8 Billion Loan for Capacity Expansion
• 13 hours Ecuador Begins Shutting Oil Wells in the Amazon
• 14 hours Harris Does U-Turn on Fracking ahead of November Election
• 15 hours Oil Prices Under Pressure Despite Libya Supply Shock
• 16 hours Libya’s Oil Production Has Now Slumped by 700,000 bpd
• 1 day UK Plans New Environmental Guidance for North Sea Oil and Gas Firms
• 1 day Marathon Oil Shareholders Approve Megadeal Conoco Acquisition
• 1 day Lukoil’s Net Profit Rises on Higher Oil Sales
• 1 day Pipeline Politics Is Forcing Kurdistan to Sell Oil at a Discount
• 1 day Earnings at China’s State Majors Signal Tepid Demand for Oil Imports
• 1 day Traders Concerned About Near-Term Risks for European Gas Supply
• 1 day China Invested $676 Billion in Its Energy Transition Last Year
• 2 days Houthis to Allow Salvage Crews to Access the Oil Tanker They Hit in the Red Sea
• 2 days Oil Prices Inch Higher as Libya's Oil Outage Outweighs Demand Fears
• 2 days China Shuts Down Speculation That It Has Reached Peak Emissions
• 2 days ONEOK Buys Energy Assets for $5.9 Billion
• 2 days Permian Producers Struggle With Negative Gas Prices
• 2 days Argentina Plans to More Than Double Lithium Revenues by 2027
• 2 days Qatar Reportedly Eyeing Stake in Germany’s Trapped Russian Refinery
• 2 days Ukraine Strikes 2 More Oil Depots Deep Into Russian Territory
• 2 days Turkish Refinery Buying Russian Crude Set for 2-Month Maintenance
• 2 days Russia: European Consumers Will Suffer If Ukraine Refuses to Extend Gas Transit
• 2 days China’s Oil Giant CNOOC Books Record-High Profit as Output Jumps
• 2 days Shutdowns at Libya’s Oilfields Continue
• 3 days U.S. Electricity Demand for 2024 Likely Peaked in July
• 3 days TotalEnergies Unit Fined for Trying to Manipulate Gasoline Futures Market
• 3 days Exxon Puts Up Permian Assets for Sale
• 3 days The Greek Tanker Struck by a Houthi Missile Is Now Leaking Oil
• 3 days U.S. Crude Oil, Product Inventories Present A Clean Sweep Of Draws
• 3 days Venezuelan President Maduro Set to Shakeup PDVSA
• 3 days Norway's Natural Gas Exports Surge in 2024
• 3 days Largest U.S Grid Faces Tough Test as Heat Wave Hits Midwest
• 3 days Net-Zero Scenarios Underestimate Energy Demand Growth, Gas Union Says
• 3 minutes e-car sales collapse
• 6 minutes America Is Exceptional in Its Political Divide
• 11 minutes Perovskites, a ‘dirt cheap’ alternative to silicon, just got a lot more efficient
• 10 hours GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES
• 13 days Bad news for e-cars keeps coming
• 29 days If hydrogen is the answer, you're asking the wrong question
• 20 days Green Energy's dirty secrets
• 5 days Hydrogen balloon still deflating
• 10 days How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy
• 22 days Solid State Lithium Battery Bank
• 33 days By Kellen McGovern Jones - "BlackRock Behind New TX-LA Offshore Wind Farm"

Breaking News:

Venezuela In Complete Blackout, Power To Soon Return

Coal Continues to Thrive Despite Pledges for Clean Energy

Despite global commitments to clean…

India Looks to Boost Coal Output and Cut Imports

The world’s second-largest coal consumer,…

Coal's Decline Accelerates as Natural Gas and Renewables Boom

The U.S. energy landscape has…

The leading economics blog online covering financial issues, geopolitics and trading.

Trending Discussions

Premium content, why coal is still a cornerstone of the global energy mix.

• In 2023, global coal consumption reached a record 164 exajoules, driven primarily by the Asia Pacific region, where coal provides 83% of energy needs.
• China alone consumed 56% of the world's coal, increasing its usage despite global efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
• Coal remains a significant player in the global energy mix, contributing 26% of the world's energy in 2023, more than all non-fossil fuel sources combined.

Despite many nations transitioning away from fossil fuels, in 2023, world coal consumption reached a staggering 164 exajoules (EJ) of energy, a record high for any year. 

The Role of Coal in Global Energy

Coal is a significant player in the global energy mix, contributing 26% of the world’s energy in 2023, more than all non-fossil fuel sources combined. The only energy source that contributed more to the global energy mix was oil.

Here’s how that consumption breaks down by region:

Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. *Commonwealth of Independent States

In 2023, China increased its coal consumption from 88 EJ to nearly 92 EJ—totalling 56% of global coal consumption . This contributed significantly to Asia Pacific leading the world with a staggering 83% of global coal consumption. 

The Importance of Coal

Easy access to existing infrastructure and reasonable prices have not only sustained global coal consumption over the last 10 years, but also paved the way for potential growth. Many developing nations are now expanding their coal consumption, presenting potential opportunities in the coal market.

For example, as per the Statistical Review of World Energy 2024, between 2022 and 2023, Bangladesh and Colombia saw double-digit percentage increases in year-over-year coal consumption: 41% and 53%, respectively.

Coal continues to play a critical role in the global energy mix, especially in the developing world, where its affordability makes it the current energy source of choice.

By Zerohedge.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com

• Liberty Steel's Polish Plant Faces Bankruptcy
• Beijing and Washington Clash Over Russia Sanctions
• Can Norway Remain Europe's Top Gas Supplier While Meeting Climate Goals?

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Previous Post

China's Solar Output is Surging but Coal is Still King

Related posts

U.S. Oil, Gas Drilling Activity. Oil Production Slip

Analysts Cut Oil Price Forecasts for Fourth Consecutive Month

Oil Prices Set for Monthly Decline as Demand Concerns Grow

• Mamdouh Salameh on August 29 2024 said: Coal will remain an essential element of the global energy mix well into the future for three crucial reasons: 1- It is a cornerstone of energy security for countries like China, India and countries of the Asia-Pacific region. 2- It generates the cheapest electricity in the world. 3- It is an important economic asset for countries with sizeable reserves and also for the economies of the regions that produce it. Dr Mamdouh G Salameh International Oil Economist Global Energy Expert

Leave a comment

Most popular.

Exxon Joins OPEC in Warning of Looming Oil Supply Crisis

Tesla's Price Cuts Spark Surge in Used Electric Vehicle Sales

Oil Prices Soar as Geopolitical Risk Rises Rapidly

Are We Headed for Another Great Depression?

Goldman Sachs Cuts Its Expected Oil Price Range by $5

ADVERTISEMENT

• More About Us
• Advertise with us
• Editorial Staff
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy

© OilPrice.com Google+ -->

The materials provided on this Web site are for informational and educational purposes only and are not intended to provide tax, legal, or investment advice.

Nothing contained on the Web site shall be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or offer to buy or sell a security to any person in any jurisdiction.

Merchant of Record: A Media Solutions trading as Oilprice.com