As an increasing number of cities across the U.S. pledge their commitment to purchase 100% of their power from renewable sources in the coming decades, some researchers questioned the feasibility of such energy policies. One recent 100% study takes the position that it is impractical for the continental U.S. to commit to 100% water, wind, and solar (WWS) energy sources between 2050 and 2055.
This article started off a Twitter discussion about the study, and more broadly, about the possibility of a 100% WWS energy commitment becoming reality. The studies are focused solely on the technical and economic challenges of the commitment. My 10-part response notes that we have to be focused on the politics, since it’s in city councils and statehouses that decisions actually happen.
Here’s the lead tweet:
My take on the #100WWSGate controversy: victory for rigor of energy research field, stresses need for diverse tech https://t.co/5lsntJmAqG
— Robert Fares (@RobertFares) June 23, 2017
This is a fabulous reflection on all the fervor this week around Jacobson et al’s flawed 100% Wind Water Solar roadmap and why it matters. https://t.co/GvQzvB8oXG
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 23, 2017
My concern was that by criticizing the analysis there’s an implied criticism of the goal of 100% renewable energy, and that goal is what is motivating a movement toward clean energy that we need.
The danger in this headline is that it will fuel the opposition that continues to suggest transition is not feasible/desirable. 1/
— John Farrell (@johnffarrell) June 23, 2017
I agree we need good, strong, robust, verifiable research behind this effort. 2/
— John Farrell (@johnffarrell) June 23, 2017
But the key to decarbonization is a political movement to fight incumbent power. 3/
— John Farrell (@johnffarrell) June 23, 2017
And movements move with inspirational goals, not technical analyses of least-cost strategies 4/
— John Farrell (@johnffarrell) June 23, 2017
So we energy wonks should study hard to identify the most appropriate pathways, but 5/
— John Farrell (@johnffarrell) June 23, 2017
…we have to recognize that – even if there’s a marginally higher cost 6/
— John Farrell (@johnffarrell) June 23, 2017
– it will always be “cheaper” to inspire people with a vision of wind/solar than a nuclear reactor. 7/
— John Farrell (@johnffarrell) June 23, 2017
Especially if wind and solar offer a vision for economic revitalization that a utility-owned nuke does not. 8/
— John Farrell (@johnffarrell) June 23, 2017
So let’s have a robust debate about the cheapest route to decarbonization. 9/
— John Farrell (@johnffarrell) June 23, 2017
But the most important fight is the political one, and it may be less costly to win with an argument that seems more costly on paper. /end
— John Farrell (@johnffarrell) June 23, 2017
This post originally published at ilsr.org. Subscribe to our weekly Energy Democracy update or follow us on Twitter or Facebook.
