Renewable energy is the way of the future, we are told.
It is inevitable. Some renewable energy advocates boldly claim that
the world could be powered by renewable energy as
early as 2030 – with enough government subsidies, that is. And
of course, the mainstream
media play their part, hyping up the virtues of solar and wind energy
as the solution to climate change.
In
one regard, they are quite right: in terms of generational capacity, wind and
solar have grown by leaps and bounds in the last three decades (wind by 24.3%
per year since 1990, solar by 46.2% per year since 1990). However, there
are two questions worth asking: (i) are renewable energies making a difference,
and (ii) are they sustainable?
To
answer the first question: No, wind and solar energy have not made a dent in
global energy consumption, despite their rapid growth. In fact, after
thirty years of beefy government subsidies, wind power still meets just 0.46%
of earth's total energy demands, according to data from the International
Energy Agency (IEA). The data include not only electrical
energy, but also energy consumed via liquid fuels for transportation, heating,
cooking, etc. Solar generates even less energy. Even combined, the
figures are minuscule: wind and solar energy together contribute less than 1%
of Earth's energy output.
Bottom
line: Renewables are not making a difference. It would be far more
cost-effective and reasonable to simply invest in more energy-efficient
technology. But of course, doing so would not line the pockets of billionaires
like Elon Musk.
To
answer the second question: Is renewable energy sustainable? Is the
future wind- and solar-powered?
No.
Looking
first at wind energy: Between 2013 and 2014, again using IEA data, global
energy demand grew by 2,000 terawatt-hours. In order to meet this demand,
we would need
to build 350,000 new 2-megawatt wind turbines – enough to entirely
blanket the British Isles. For context, that is 50%
moreturbines than have been built globally since the year 2000. Wind
power is not the future; there is simply not enough extraditable energy.
Unfortunately, better technology cannot overcome this problem: turbines
can become only so efficient due to the Betz limit, which specifies how much
energy can be extracted from a moving fluid. Wind turbines are very close
to that physical limit.
The
state of solar energy is only slightly more promising. Recent findings
suggest that humanity would need to cover an equatorial region the
size of Spainwith solar panels in order to generate enough electricity to
meet global demand by 2030. Not only is this an enormous amount of land
that could otherwise be used for agriculture, or left pristine, but it also
underestimates the size of the ecological footprint, since only 20% of
mankind's energy consumption takes
the form of electricity. Were we to switch to electric vehicles, the
area needed would be five times as large.
Even
if the world agreed to take this project on, it would not be possible due to
resource limitations. For example, each 1.8-square meter solar panel
requires 20
grams of silver to build. Since there are 1 million square
meters in a square kilometer, 11.1 tons of silver is needed per square
kilometer of solar panels. Spain is 506,000 square kilometers.
Covering this much space with solar panels would require 5,616,600 tons
of silver. As it turns out, that is 7.2 times as muchsilver
as is estimated to exist in Earth's crust. Granted, new
technology could mitigate the need for silver, but this same logic applies to
dozens of other minerals present in solar panels. They are simply not
feasible on a large scale because they are resource-hungry.
One
must also remember that such massive investments in solar panels would
inevitably contribute to resource scarcity: modern electronics require many of
the same minerals as do solar panels. Increased competition for a finite
supply of minerals would raise the prices of our electronic goods, as well as
the price of electricity. Of course, this analysis wholly ignores the
many other problems with solar and wind energy, such as the problem
of intermittency and the hidden systemic risks it entails.
This
is not to say wind and solar energy have no uses. In some cases, they may
be preferable to other types of energy. For example, in remote locations
townships and homesteads can benefit greatly from local electricity production,
especially since renewable energy does not require fuel. However, wind
and solar energy are unlikely to underpin the global energy supply, so long as
more cost-effective and efficient options remain on the table.