Debates on the potential of alternative energy sources to offset U.S. dependency on foreign sources of energy continue to swirl. Joel Darmstadter, an RFF senior fellow, offers his views on the current status and future potential of these energy options.
For more information, or to request an interview with an RFF researcher on this topic, please contact Janet Hodur at 202-328-5019.
Q: What percent of our current energy supply comes from so-called alternative fuel sources?
A: Overall, about six percent of our total energy use comes from alternative, or "renewable," sources - predominantly deployed in generation of electricity. (A small quantity of renewables - mostly as ethanol - is used in transportation.) Keep in mind that, confusingly, the government's statistical practice often lumps hydropower together with other renewables. Excluding hydropower, about two percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is based on renewables.
Q: Are any of these technologies ready and able to be quickly implemented on a larger scale?
A: Wind is probably the principal technology amenable to relatively quick installation, although siting frequently prolongs the planning process. But windpower should not be characterized as large scale. It takes a lot of turbines to begin to approach the scale of even a medium-sized power plant.
Q: In your opinion, how realistic is it to suggest that alternative fuels will reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources?
A: In the short run - say, five to ten years - it seems quite unrealistic. In the more distant future, I'd apply the term "possible" but not "highly probable." The dependency dilemma, after all, revolves mainly around oil, and most significantly, its use in transportation. Eventually, such renewable fuels as biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and hydrogen can begin to help blunt top-heavy reliance on conventional oil.
Q: What technology in this field has seen the most success so far? Which shows the most limitations?
A: Windpower has probably seen the most success to date. Biomass looks promising. Geothermal energy is exploited in limited regions of the country. Solar photovoltaic power is best viewed as more distant in terms of market viability. (A few persons categorize nuclear power as a kind of renewable, given the unquestioned abundance of uranium resources.)
Q: What is the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative fuel sources compared to traditional sources?
A: Even existing alternatives - windpower in electricity, ethanol in transportation - can't make it without tax benefits and subsidies, at least for the foreseeable future.
Q: What issues in the policy arena hold back further development of alternative technologies? What looks promising regarding further research and development?
A: There are a number of issues:
- Technological progress is an ongoing, rather than completed, process.
- The failure to more fully account for the environmental and security costs associated with conventional sources, such as CO2 releases from coal-burning power plants, hurts the competitive attractiveness of alternatives - and thereby the private incentives to innovate and adopt them.
- There is the "chicken-egg" problem when it comes to ethanol: without a widespread network of ethanol refueling stations, drivers and manufacturers will back away from the fuel, but without a ready market, there's no incentive to develop the needed distribution network.
Q: How much energy can we realistically acquire by fully developing existing alternative fuel sources? What time frame would this require?
A: With wind and biofuels (especially ethanol from sources other than corn) progressing, the share of the nation's overall energy contributed by renewables seems almost certain to grow over the next several decades. The fact that the prevailing six percent share, mentioned earlier, is projected by EIA to increase only slightly, arises from the fact that conventional hydroelectricity remains basically flat, with all the growth coming from the more innovative sources mentioned throughout this Q&A. Thus, in electric power generation, non-hydro renewables are expected to raise their contribution from two percent to between four-to-five percent by 2030. In broad perspective, of course, that is still a very modest amount, signaling that a wide "portfolio" of energy options - conventional and unconventional - deserve to be pursued.
