Can the world run on renewable energy? A revised negative case

Abstract

Purpose -The discussion of climate change and energy problems is generally based on the assumption that technical solutions are possible and that the task is essentially to determine the most effective ways. This view relies heavily on the expectation that renewable energy sources can be substituted for fossil fuels. The purpose of this paper is to improve on an earlier attempt to estimate the investment cost that would be involved in deriving total world energy supply from renewable sources. Design/methodology/approach -This discussion improves on an earlier attempt to estimate the investment cost that would be involved in deriving total world energy supply from renewable sources. It takes common assumptions re future energy demand and estimates of future output and capital costs of major renewable energy sources and explores four strategies for supplying global energy demand in 2050.Findings -This paper finds that the greenhouse and energy problems cannot be solved by action on the supply side, i.e. by technical developments which promise to provide quantities taken for granted in energy-intensive societies. This general "limits to growth" perspective is that these and the other major global problems can only be solved by action on the demand side, i.e. by moving to ways, values, institutions and systems which greatly reduce the need for materials, energy and ecological resources. Research limitations/implications -Confidence in the conclusions is limited mainly by the lack of evidence at this point in time on the actual difficulties set by the problem of integrating the intermittent sources, and the resulting need for redundant plant. Practical implications -Each of the four strategies explored requires large amounts of redundant plant to be able to cope with the intermittency problem. Each leads to total system capital costs which are well beyond affordable levels. Social implications -The findings add to the general "limits to growth" case that solutions to the global energy and other sustainability problems cannot be achieved within consumer-capitalist society but must be sought via dramatic reductions in production, consumption and GDP. This would require radical system change from the commitment to growth, market systems and affluent lifestyles, to what is described as The Simpler Way. Originality/value -It does not seem that this approach has previously been taken to the specific issue of the potential and limits of renewable energy. Little or no attention has been given to the thesis that global sustainability and justice require transition to some kind of Simpler Way.

Voluntary simplification as an alternative to collapse

“…Leaving to one side the fact that the transition to renewables is taking place at a disturbingly slow rate while emissions continue to rise (Jackson, 2009, p. 72), the more fundamental problem seems to be the inherent limitations to renewable energy sources. Trainer (2013aTrainer ( , 2013bTrainer ( , 2012, for example, has spent the best part of a decade examining the best available evidence on varieties of solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, etc., as well as energy storage systems, such as hydrogen and batteries. He concludes that the figures do not support the widely held assumption that renewable energy can sustain the global economy, in anything like its current form.…”

Global zero-carbon energy pathways using viable mixes of nuclear and renewables

“…A different mix of renewables could potentially reduce its land footprint (e.g., a mix of 40% wind, 40% photovoltaic, 10% hydroelectric and 10% bioenergy would claim about 2.2% of the Earth's total land area, excluding large-scale energy storage, backup power plants, material mining area, and fuel storage for bioenergy), and efficient land use and advanced technologies could further reduce the land area required (e.g., lower bioenergy penetration, land sharing and offshore wind power) (Appendix E). However, relying on one or two intermittent sources of total electricity demand to reduce required land area is not technically and economically feasible [21], and it is axiomatic that nuclear power would claim less land area than any scalable renewable system due to its extremely high energy density and inherent energy storage properties as a fuel [40].…”

“…The early-deployment pathway assumes a complete phase-out of fossil fuels for energy by 2050, excluding non-energy use of fossil resources. Although both the linear-and late-deployment pathways also assume the complete phase-out of fossil-fuels for energy by 2060, the former reduces fossil-fuel consumption linearly from 2011 to 2060, whereas the latter relies heavily on fossil fuels through to 2030 (>58% of the final energy consumption) due to the delayed action arising from some combination of political inertia, explicit anti-nuclear or fossilfuel-friendly policies [23][24][25], insufficient awareness of the socio-economic risks posed by climate-change impacts [32], and/or delayed technological improvement and inertia of energy systems [21,33].…”

“…Although there is a theoretical potential for renewable energy resources to supply global energy demand [15,16], the real-world limitations of renewables, such as economic cost, land transformation, intermittency, scalability, energy storage, long-distance transmission and geographical distribution, put serious constraints on the plausibility of high renewable penetration [17][18][19][20][21]. Nuclear power is a viable, large-scale, low-emissions option [17][18][19]22]; however, after the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear accident associated with the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan in March 2011, the governments of Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Belgium announced plans to phase out nuclear power or reduce their nuclear penetration.…”

Descent pathways

“…Clearly the reinvestment of energy from fossil fuelled to renewable supply infrastructure is not being addressed on a scale commensurate with the transition task (see articles by Moriarty and Honnery and Zehner in this special issue for further perspectives relevant to this). This leaves aside myriad additional factors that combine to challenge the expectation that levels of energy services similar to those currently enjoyed by industrial societies might be provided via renewable sources (Smil, 2010;Moriarty and Honnery, 2009, 2012a, 2012bMacKay, 2009;Hall et al, 2009;Michaux, 2011;Floyd, 2012;Friedrichs, 2011;Zehner, 2012;Trainer, 2012Trainer, , 2013bTrainer, , 2013aTrainer, , 2014Palmer, 2014).…”