Energy is hot right now (pun intended). Climate activists cast a vision of the US providing clean, dependable energy to all of its citizens, while also respecting the people groups who have historically been neglected or exploited for energy sources. Most importantly, proposed energy legislation (mainly the Green New Deal) mandates reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, with emissions peaking in 2030 at the latest. But what does “net-zero carbon emissions” mean, and is it reasonable to set such an ambitious goal?
Carbon neutrality requires transition away from energy sources that produce greenhouse gas pollutants (gases that trap heat from the sun and are thus responsible for the earth’s warming). Instead, carbon neutrality demands a move toward sources that either remove the same amount of gasses they produce, like biofuels, or that generate energy without producing carbon pollutants, like renewables and nuclear energy.
Can renewables carry the weight of our energy needs? As of 2018 in the U.S, about 11% of energy demand is met by renewable energy, with only 8% of that 11% coming from solar panels, 22% coming from wind farms, and the rest from other renewable energy sources like hydroelectric and geothermal plants. Nine U.S. states and territories (including Puerto Rico) have set clean energy goals that require 100% clean energy production within the next 30 years.
The renewable sector must rapidly expand to supply the energy demanded by consumers. Government subsidization of solar panels and battery storage systems in the form of investment tax credits encourages activity in these sectors. The pace of ongoing innovation in renewables and battery storage is astounding.
There are a lot of worries associated with renewable energy. For example, there is skepticism about whether solar panels will last long enough to be worth their investment. Many also fear that the panels will be obsolete in 20 years and need to be thrown out, creating astronomic amounts of plastic waste. While well intentioned, most of these worries are born from a lack of complete information.
While panels will eventually cease to work and may one day contribute to waste, the average solar panel pays for itself within eight years, and most solar contracts are set for 20-25 years of generation.
Degradation (the amount of energy generation capability a solar panel loses per year) is at about .8% for an average panel; after 20 years, generation would still be at over 80% of the original energy output of the solar panel. It is worth adding that any kind of energy generation plant will face degradation and need replaced parts, but—unlike solar energy—may also contribute carbon emissions in the meantime and, according to some recent studies, may not be as cost effective as solar plants.
The purpose of this article is not to champion solar energy, but to lend credibility to the desire for clean energy. Not all concerns about renewable energy are unfounded—only most. One well-founded criticism is that renewables lack reliability. What if the sun doesn’t shine brightly enough at times? What if the wind doesn’t blow and the rivers don’t flow? These are important questions.
Even within the constraints of net-zero carbon energy, there is room for diversification. There are many kinds of energy sources, such as biofuels and nuclear energy, that provide reliability, although at the cost of other waste externalities. There are also emergent technologies like battery storage that will maximize the efficiency of renewables. Increasing energy efficiency for the consumer will also contribute to the effectiveness of clean generation in meeting energy demand.
If you advocate for clean energy, you are not just a dreamer. If you believe that we can power our cars and houses with the sun and wind, you are not naïve. While there are still complications like sourcing materials, the solutions are there. Concern for climate should be rooted in concern for how we treat each other—particularly the marginalized, who will be most affected and least able to escape the effects of a changing climate. All it takes is devoting less attention (and funding) to why we can’t and more to how we will.