Can Renewable Power Energize the U.S.?
Elizabeth Alderman
Debate Paper #6
November 4, 2014
1548 Words
Fossil fuels have been an essential source of energy since coal was discovered. In the
1700s, steam engines were the first machines to use fossil fuels to power a mechanical process.
In the 1800s, natural gas was burned in street lamps, and the internal combustion engine was
invented, which used fossil fuels to power vehicles. There were many developments in energy in
the 1800s, not only in fossil fuels but also in renewable energies. Photovoltaic compounds were
discovered in the 1830s that led to the development of solar power, and in the 1880s,
hydroelectric power became commercially available in the U.S. Environmental concerns related
to the use of fossil fuels increased in the 1900s. In the 1940s and 50s increased amounts of smog
in the atmosphere caused people to be concerned about the environmental effects of fossil fuels.
In the 1970s, the U.S., in response to an oil shortage, created agencies to regulate nuclear power
and develop alternative energy sources ("History of Alternative and Renewable Energy"). The
use of renewable energies has increased as concern about the consequences of fossil fuels has
increased. But is it possible for the U.S. to be powered entirely by renewable energy?
Stakeholders in this debate include oil, gas, and coal companies because if the country ran
entirely on renewable power, they would be out of business. Renewable energy companies, like
solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power companies, are also stakeholders because if the
U.S. increased its use of renewable power, then these businesses would be able to row, and they
would make money. Everyone that uses power is a stakeholder because the source of that power
would change. Environmentalists and environmental groups and agencies are stakeholders
because they want to phase out the use of fossil fuels in order to improve the health of the planet.
The issues surrounding this debate are if renewables can generate enough power continuously to
support the U.S., how the price of energy will change, and how much will the switch over to
renewables help the environment.
There are many people that believe that renewable energies have the power to completely
support the energy needs of the U.S. The team of researchers as Stanford University that wrote
the paper, "100% Wind, Water, Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Plans for the 50 United
States," believe that is it possible for wind, solar, and hydroelectric power to power the whole
country. The paper proposes a plan to convert the U.S. completely to WWS “while maintaining
jobs and low energy prices” (Jacobson et al.). All new energies in 2020 will be WWS. By 2030,
80 85% of existing energies will be replaced by WWS energies, and 100% will be replaced by
2050 (Jacobson et al.). The energy make-up of the U.S. might be 50 % wind, 45.7% solar, 2.5%
hydroelectric, 1.3% geothermal, and 0.5% wave or tidal energy (Jacobson et al.). The paper
emphasized all of the different benefits of converting to renewable energies. Converting to WWS
would save the country a lot of money in many different ways. It would save about $510 billion
a year in health costs due to pollution and other effects of the use of fossil fuels. The country
would also save about $730 billion a year in global warming costs. Fuel costs for WWS would
be zero, so the U.S. could stabilize energy prices (Jacobson et al.). Converting would cause the
loss of 3.9 million jobs, but at the same time would create, 7.4 million jobs that would outweigh
the jobs lost (Jacobson et al.). Most importantly, and most obviously, converting to WWS would
benefit the environment. These energies have zero emissions, and once the conversion occurs,
the technologies will only be using about 0.44% of the U.S.’s land, and most of it will be in the
desert, so these energies have very minimal environmental impact (Jacobson et al.). However,
this paper also describes the barriers that are preventing the conversion. The greatest barriers are
social and political, not technical or economic. Political will is necessary to put the conversion
into motion. “Effective Policies are needed to ensure a rapid transition” (Jacobson et al.).
This paper is very researched based and seemingly unbiased, since the research occurred
at a university and not at a company that is a stakeholder in this debate. The paper provided a
plan to switch the country entirely over to WWS and discussed how each type of energy would
play a role in the transition. This source is probably very reliable, and it presented many facts.
However, it was too fact-based and not persuasive. If the sole purpose of the paper was to list
facts about switching to renewable energy, then it accomplished that, but it did not do a very
good job at persuading the reader that is important or urgent for the country to switch over to
WWS. The paper listed too many facts and percentages, and had huge graphs that do not mean
anything to the reader. The paper also said that the largest barriers stopping the transition are
social and political barriers, but it does not offer a plan to overcome those obstacles. The paper is
focused on the small technical aspects of the switch but does not focus on the big picture. The
Solutions Project website provided a more visually appealing and fun-facts version of the 50
page paper.
Some people believe that renewable energies can power the U.S. by themselves, but
many people think that they cannot accomplish this alone, and need to be used in conjunction
with conventional energies. The Switch Energy Project believes that renewable energies are
good, but they could not completely replace coal, oil, and gas. One of the biggest problems with
renewable energies is that they are not completely reliable. Wind and solar power only produce
power intermittently, when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. They need to be used along
with a backup source of power. Natural gas is easy to turn on and off and increase or decrease
the amount of energy produced, so it is a good backup for these energies ("Energy Mix"). Solar
power runs during the day to help with peak electricity use, but coal runs all day and night
because it is the most reliable and cheapest source of energy. The U.S. gets half of its electricity
from burning coal, and the percentage is even higher globally (“Energy Mix”). Another big
problem with renewable energies is that there are no efficient technologies that can store large
amounts of energy. Since the energies are intermittent, the only way for them to provide energy
continuously would be if the energy could be stores and used later. One advantage that oil and
coal have over renewables is their highly developed transportation network. It is much easier to
move them from place to place than it is to transport electricity from wind turbines or solar
panels across the country. Building power lines to move the electricity from far away is difficult
and expensive (“Energy Mix”). Another big problem with renewable energy is the price. Solar
power technology is very expensive. Although the energy is free once the panels are installed,
people that have them in their home cannot go off of the energy grid completely and end up
saving very little money per month. “Energy that is not affordable is ultimately not sustainable”
(“Energy Mix”). The top two things that people look for in an energy source are reliability and
cost.
This website seems very reliable because it is composed of interviews with many
different people with different jobs, backgrounds, and biases. It provides a well-rounded view of
the subject. There were interviews with people that work at universities, like Stanford University
Energy Program Directors, people that are involved in politics and policy making, and people
that are actually involved in the field, like a wind farmer. The Switch Energy Project wants the
U.S. to eventually transition to 100% renewable energies, but the interviews often discussed the
problems with renewable energy, and how it is impossible to entirely use renewables. The
project is called “Switch” but it is not trying to convince people that the switch is possible or
important. The website emphasized the need for increased natural gas and nuclear power, neither
of which are renewable energies.
Although I feel that the Switch Energy Project website was more persuasive on the topic
than the paper by Jacobson, I believe that it is possible for the country to run entirely on
renewable energy. However, I do not believe that it is possible for the transition to occur as
rapidly as Jacobson’s paper plans. It is very necessary for the transition to happen as quickly as
possible in order to prevent any more harm being done to the earth than has already occurred.
Nobody knows how much longer the world can survive if we continue living and consuming the
way we do. We may need to supplement renewable energy with fossil fuels as backups, but those
need to be phased out as quickly as possible. There are some downfalls to renewable energy, like
reliability and cost, but the benefits they have on the environment compared to coal and oil
greatly outweigh the disadvantages. If we want to preserve the planet, action needs to be taken
now.
Works Cited
"Energy Mix." Switch Energy Project. Switch Energy Project, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.switchenergyproject.com/topics/energymix>.
"History of Alternative and Renewable Energy." EBSCO Host Communication. EBSCO, n.d.
Web. 01 Nov. 2014.
<http%3A%2F%2Fconnection.ebscohost.com%2Fscience%2Falternative-energyexploration%2Fhistory-alternative-and-renewable-energy>.
Jacobson, Mark Z., Guillaume Bazouin, Zack A.F. Bauer, Christa C. Heavey, Emma Fisher,
Emma C. Huthinson, Sean Morris, Diniana J.Y. Piekutowski, Taylor A. Vencill, and
Tim W. Yeskoo. "100% Wind, Water, Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Plans for
the 50 United States." (n.d.): n. pag. Stanford. Stanford University, 17 July 2014. Web.
01 Nov. 2014.
<http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf>.