According to International Energy Agency data,
13.12% of the world’s energy came from renewables in 1971, the first
year that the IEA reported global statistics. In 2011, renewables’ share
was actually lower, at 12.99%. Yet a new survey shows that Americans believe that the share of renewables in 2035 will be 30.2%. In reality, it will likely be 14.5%.
Solar
and wind energy account for a trivial proportion of current renewables –
about one-third of one percentage point. The vast majority comes from
biomass, or wood and plant material – humanity’s oldest energy source.
While biomass is renewable, it is often neither good nor sustainable.
Burning
wood in pre-industrial Western Europe caused massive deforestation, as
is occurring in much of the developing world today. The indoor air pollution that biomass produces kills more than three million people annually. Likewise, modern energy crops increase deforestation, displace agriculture, and push up food prices.
The most renewables-intensive places in the world are also the poorest. Africa gets almost 50% of its energy from renewables, compared to just 8% for the OECD. Even the European OECD countries, at 11.8%, are below the global average.
The reality is that humanity has spent recent centuries getting away
from renewables. In 1800, the world obtained 94% of its energy from
renewable sources. That figure has been declining ever since.
The
momentous move toward fossil fuels has done a lot of good. Compared to
250 years ago, the average person in the United Kingdom today has access
to 50 times more power, travels 250 times farther, and has 37,500 times more light. Incomes have increased 20-fold.
The
switch to fossil fuels has also had tremendous environmental benefits.
Kerosene saved the whales (which had been hunted almost to extinction to
provide supposedly “renewable” whale oil for lighting). Coal saved
Europe’s forests. With electrification, indoor air pollution, which is
much more dangerous than outdoor air pollution, disappeared in most of
the developed world.
And there is one environmental benefit that is often overlooked: in 1910, more than 30% of farmland in the United States
was used to produce fodder for horses and mules. Tractors and cars
eradicated this huge demand on farmland (while ridding cities of manure
pollution).
Of
course, fossil fuels brought their own environmental problems. And,
while technological innovations like scrubbers on smokestacks and
catalytic converters on cars have reduced local air pollution
substantially, the problem of CO₂ emissions remains. Indeed, it is the
main reason for the world’s clamor for a return to renewables.
To
be sure, wind and solar have increased dramatically. Since 1990,
wind-generated power has grown 26% per year and solar a phenomenal 48%.
But the growth has been from almost nothing to slightly more than almost
nothing. In 1990, wind produced 0.0038% of the world’s energy; it is
now producing 0.29%. Solar-electric power has gone from essentially zero
to 0.04%.
Yes, Denmark gets a record 34% of its electricity from wind. But electricity accounts for only 18% of its final energy use.
Europe now gets 1% of its energy from wind – less than before industrialization, when cozy windmills contributed about 2% (and ships’ sails provided another 1%). The UK set its record for wind power in 1804, when its share reached 2.5% – almost three times its level today.
Moreover,
solar and wind will still contribute very little in the coming decades.
In the IEA’s optimistic scenario, which assumes that the world’s
governments will fulfill all of their green promises, wind will provide
1.34% of global energy by 2035, while solar will provide 0.42%. Global
renewables will most likely increase by roughly 1.5 percentage points,
to 14.5% by 2035. Under unrealistically optimistic assumptions, the
share could increase five percentage points, to 17.9%.
So
we are nowhere near switching back to renewables anytime soon. In the
US, renewables accounted for 9.3% of energy production in 1949.
President Barack Obama’s administration expects that number, almost a century later, to increase slightly, to 10.8% by 2040. In China, renewables’ share in energy production dropped from 40% in 1971 to 11% today; in 2035, it will likely be just 9%.
Yet we are paying through the nose for these renewables. In the last 12 years, the world has invested $1.6 trillion
in clean energy. By 2020, the effort to increase reliance on renewables
will cost the European Union alone $250 billion annually.
Spain now pays almost 1% of its GDP in subsidies for renewables, which is more than it spends on higher education. At the end of the century, Spain’s massive investment will have postponed global warming by 62 hours.
Current
green energy policies are failing for a simple reason: renewables are
far too expensive. Sometimes people claim that renewables are actually cheaper. But if renewables were cheaper, they wouldn’t need subsidies, and we wouldn’t need climate policies.
Former US Vice President Al Gore’s climate adviser, Jim Hansen, put it bluntly:
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels
in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost
the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy.”
The
solution is to innovate the price of renewables downward. We need a
dramatic increase in funding for research and development to make the
next generations of wind, solar, and biomass energy cheaper and more
effective.
Consider
China. Despite the country’s massive investment in solar and wind, it
mostly sells solar panels to Western countries at subsidized prices.
Wind makes up just 0.2% of China’s energy, and solar accounts for 0.01%.
Meanwhile,
China has 68% of the world’s solar water heaters on rooftops, because
it is a smart and cheap technology. It needs no subsidies, and it
produces 50 times more energy than all of China’s solar panels.
When
green renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, they will take over the
world. Instead of believing in the Tooth Fairy, we should start
investing in green R&D.
