It is the stated policy of the federal government, and some state governments, to replace use of fossil fuels with alternative energy, especially in the production of electricity. The stated rationale for this policy is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and lessen our dependency on imported fossil fuels. Several states (including Arizona) have laws which mandate that a certain (increasing) percentage of electricity be produced with the usually much more expensive alternative energy sources such as solar and wind generation. How well is that working?

A study published earlier this year asked: “Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?” The answer is “not much.”

Richard York of the University of Oregon studied the use of alternative energy in 130 countries to assess the contribution of various forms of non-fossil fuels. The study showed “that the average pattern across most nations of the world over the past fifty years is one where each unit of total national energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-quarter of a unit of fossil-fuel energy use and, focusing specifically on electricity, each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity.”

Nuclear and hydro generation were the best of the alternatives to fossil fuels. Each kilowatt-hour (kwh) of nuclear generation of electricity displaced about 0.2 kwh of fossil fuel generation; hydro displaced about 0.1 kwh. Wind and solar generation did not displace any fossil fuel generation.

There are two reasons for that last result. First, wind and solar generation, while increasing, still represent a very small part of the generation capacity compared to consumption. But the main reason for lack of impact of solar and wind generation is that they are unreliable, intermittent sources that require backup generation, and that is usually by fossil fuels. Furthermore, because the fossil fuel backup generation must be on-call, it cannot run efficiently and therefore it actually uses more fuel than it would had it been the primary source. And incidentally, the backup generation also produces more carbon dioxide emissions than it would have had it been run efficiently as primary generation.

York concludes: “These results challenge conventional thinking in that they indicate that suppressing the use of fossil fuel will require changes other than simply technical ones such as expanding non-fossil-fuel energy production.”

See also:

The scale problem for solar and wind generation of electricity

Renewable energy mandates raise electricity costs

Renewables receive bulk of tax preference subsidies

Electricity generated by wind power may raise temperatures and costs

Wind farms raise local and regional temperatures

Blowing in the Wind, a look at green jobs

EIA says Clean Energy program will increase electricity costs 29%

The current eco-fad of trying to produce an ever greater percentage of our electricity from solar and wind has some consequences on land use that are poorly thought out.

Robert Bryce, writing in Energy Tribune, takes out his calculator to see how much land would be used to achieve the green utopia (see his full article here).

The International Energy Agency expects the increase in demand for new electrical generation to be 450 terawatt-hours per year, which was the average annual increase every year from 1985 to 2011 (1 terawatt = 1 million megawatts).

How much solar energy would be needed to meet that demand? Bryce notes, “Germany has more installed solar-energy capacity that any other country, with some 25,000 megawatts of installed photovoltaic panels. In 2011, those panels produced 18 terawatt-hours of electricity. Just to keep pace with the growth in global electricity demand, the world would have to install about 25 times as much photovoltaic capacity as Germany’s total installed base, and it would have to do so every year.” Where are we going to put all those panels? Apparently Germany has had enough with their solar experiment and are now building 23 new coal-fired plants.

For wind, the problem is even greater. For instance, Bryce notes that by the end of 2011, the U.S. had 47,000 megawatts of installed wind-energy capacity which produced about 120 terawatt-hours of electricity. “Thus, just to keep pace with the growth in global electricity demand by using wind energy, we would have to install about 3.75 times the current installed wind capacity in the U.S. every year.”

So how much land would be required for wind generation to meet the annual increase in demand? Bryce says that “The power density of wind energy is roughly two watts per square meter or about five megawatts per square mile. Therefore, just to keep up with the growth in global electricity demand by using wind energy alone, the global wind industry will need to cover a land area of some 35,000 square miles — about the size of Indiana — with wind turbines. And it will have to do so every year.”

Will those 35,000 square miles be carved out of natural habitat every year? Fossil fuel and nuclear plant generation have a much smaller footprint.

In the U.S., as the Department of the Interior designates more and more land suitable for solar, environmental groups have howled about the potential destruction of habitat for animals such as the desert tortoise.

As more and more wind farms are established, people are realizing the costs, not just for electricity, but for health and habitat as well as the scenery. Bryce reports that in Europe alone, there are now more than 500 anti-wind groups.

See:

Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

Windsmills are killing our birds

Wind Turbines Spread While Bats Take Beating

Bats, Birds, and Blades

Wind farms raise local and regional temperatures

President Obama claims to have an “all of the above” energy policy designed to develop and use all of our abundant energy sources.

It’s “all of the above” except for the re-imposed moratorium on off-shore drilling which locks up 85% of the potential for gas and oil discovery and production. The Congressional Research Service released a new report comparing President Obama’s offshore drilling lease plan for 2012-2017 with previous plans offered over the last 30 years by prior Administrations. The 15 proposed lease sales in President Obama’s new plan represent the lowest number of lease sales ever offered in a plan since the process began in 1980. The Obama Administration has also delayed and cancelled several lease sales – conducting only 11 out of the 21 originally scheduled sales in the previous 2007-2012 lease plan.

It’s “all of the above” except that Obama’s EPA has promulgated stifling regulations against electricity production, especially for coal generation.

It’s “all of the above” except Obama’s Secretary of the Interior has withdrawn about one million acres in Arizona from uranium exploration and development, ignoring the lack of scientific evidence that such activities could pose potential harm to the Colorado River drainage system.

(See Uranium mining ban near Grand Canyon all politics, no science )

The Institute for Energy Research has assessed Obama’s energy policy as follows:

There has been a shift in energy policy over the past four years that aims to move our country into a “greener” future. This new energy policy includes an increase in subsidies for alternative energy sources such as solar, biofuel and wind power as well as stricter regulations on affordable sources like coal, oil and natural gas. After four years, has this shift in policy left American consumers with a better energy landscape? Are Americans really better off now than they were in 2008?

The answer is no. The government’s alternative energy subsidies have wasted taxpayer money, while new regulations continue to stifle affordable energy development. States like North Dakota — where most of the land is privately-owned and not under federal control — have been able to develop their vast energy resources despite these new policies, and have been thriving as a result. As a whole, however, the U.S. economy is hindered by this “green” energy agenda. At the end of the day, these policies hurt the American people through higher prices for essential energy needs like electricity and gasoline.

See also:

The Cost of green energy

Renewables receive bulk of tax preference subsidies

The myth of green jobs

Blowing in the Wind, a look at green jobs