COMMENTARY: Time to get real about renewables

Those who argue for a complete transition from coal, natural gas and oil ask us to do what John Lennon suggested: “Imagine.” Imagine the world they want and not engage with the world as it is. However, producing enough energy to meet our needs and balancing this against environmental concerns requires far more than just imagination.

The reality is: The types of “renewable” energy that advocates usually have in mind — solar and wind power, hydroelectric power, “bio” energy, tidal and wave energy — can’t do what fossil fuels do, now or in the near future. Fossil fuels are here to stay, and policy should reflect that.

Since the 1970s, “transitioning” away from fossil fuels has been a significant goal of environmental groups and their allies. According to Department of Energy data, after 50 years of rhetoric and many trillions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and private investment, renewables produced just more than 20 percent of U.S. electricity and 9 percent of U.S. energy last year.

A much-needed reality check shows instead that 83 percent of U.S. energy and 60 percent of electricity came from fossil fuels in 2023. These numbers should give pause to anyone suggesting that the transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar, geothermal and biomass will be quick, easy or affordable.

Instead, we still rely on fossil fuels for nearly all our daily activities. Whether lighting, heating and cooling our homes and businesses, traveling by plane or car, delivering produce and manufactured goods, growing crops or myriad other seemingly pedestrian activities that take place daily, they all rely heavily on fossil fuels.

Proponents of renewables will look at those numbers and ask you to “Imagine” all the ways we could transition and how much better the world would be if we did. However, a study by researchers at Baylor University found that the policy goals currently advocated are unrealistic. Their work suggests that there’s no feasible way to transition completely, or even significantly, to renewables because current alternative energy sources cannot reliably meet demand and, absent large government subsidies, are far more costly. As is always the case with imagining, because we imagine something doesn’t mean it will happen.

Consumers expect that when they flip a switch, the lights will come on every time. In terms of energy policy, we talk about this expectation as the “necessity of reliability.” Fossil fuels are more reliable because they can produce energy day and night when the wind is howling and when it’s calm, when the river’s waters are rushing toward their destination, and during long dry spells when it barely flows.

In contrast, the wind and the sun, which account for most renewable energy, produce no energy when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.

This leaves supporters with a problem: either the suggestion that we build costly grid-size battery storage facilities to compensate for the “down” times, or we add rapid-cycle natural gas generators to the mix — which involves the strange reality that implementing a reliable renewable strategy requires the use of fossil fuels.

These backup requirements also increase costs. For example, researchers at the University of Chicago estimate electricity prices have risen as much as 17 percent thanks to the mandatory inclusion of renewable energy, costing consumers more than $125.2 billion more than they would have paid had they stayed with fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels store energy efficiently and produce energy independent of weather. For more than 150 years, they have demonstrated their reliability and affordability. Renewable energy today does neither.

There is a form of “green” energy that could fill this need: nuclear power. However, that remains unacceptable to many in the environmental movement. The movement would instead continue subsidizing wind and solar power.

So instead of imagining what we want the world to be, we should look at the world as it is, and allow the usual process of consumer demand, entrepreneurial innovation and an assessment of costs to give us the energy we need.

Ryan M. Yonk is a research fellow at the Independent Institute and a senior research fellow and director of educational programs at the American Institute for Economic Research. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.