The Future is 100% Renewable Energy. The Future Isn't Now.
Lagging demand, technology and infrastructure mean that we can't make fossil fuels extinct yet
One of my first beats as a journalist was a blue state suburb that, at least in those days, tilted red. The Town Council was divided 6 - 3 in favor of Republicans, and, on many measures, that was the vote split, as members voted precisely the way Republicans and Democrats are expected to vote. This was unsurprising because most of the councilors in the majority weren’t what you would call liberal or even centrist Republicans, as they held orthodox, conservative positions on most fiscal and cultural issues.
But, there was one issue–one that is typically Democratic terrain–on which counselors were strikingly unified. Proposals pertaining to renewable energy and other energy efficiency initiatives consistently passed without opposition.
The Republican members hadn’t converted to a green worldview. They were merely swayed by the indisputable economics of renewable energy. Free, infinite power sources are axiomatically superior to those that cost money and whose supply is limited. Renewables also hold the potential to liberate the U.S. from its dependence on foreign energy sources. Plus, unlike fossil fuels, they don’t impose much of an upfront cost on the environment.
There were a few projects in this vein that the majority declined to support. A motion to install an electric vehicle charging station was decisively killed when Republican councilors noted that, in a town where fewer than 30,000 people lived at the time, no more than 50 drove EVs.
The argument echoed a criticism that is directed at environmental projects in general–that they are often instituted prematurely. Either a market hasn’t been established for a green-friendly product or service, the infrastructure hasn’t been built, the technology hasn’t reached the necessary stage of development, or the glitches haven’t been fixed. But, whatever the reason, some of these initiatives aren’t ready for primetime.
The problems that have arisen with EVs in recent years illustrate this syndrome. EV fires are substantially more intense and more difficult to extinguish than internal combustion engine fires. EV batteries need prolonged charging times and have range issues, especially in cold weather. The number and regional distribution of charging stations is insufficient. EVs also weigh much more than gas-powered vehicles and struggle with towing.
More and more states—including green-conscious, blue states—are pausing policies that they enacted that require them to meet benchmarks for EV sales. On Tuesday, Vermont joined the Democratic bastions of Colorado, Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut and Delaware in delaying or rolling back implementation of related mandates.
“We have to be realistic about a pace that’s achievable. It’s clear we don’t have anywhere near enough charging infrastructure and insufficient technological advances in heavy-duty vehicles to meet current goals,” Gov. Phil Scott (D) said in a statement. “We have much more work to do, in order make it more convenient, faster, and more affordable to buy, maintain and charge EV’s.”
According to Vermont’s now frozen law, 35% of new vehicles sold in the state were required to be electric by next year. In the fourth quarter of 2024, EVs comprised about 12% of the state’s new auto sales.
Vermont’s decision follows the announcement earlier this month by Gov. Matt Meyer (D) of Delaware that he plans to nix the EV regulations established by his predecessor, fellow Democrat John Carney. Carney’s mandates require 43% of new vehicles in the state to be EVs or hybrids by 2027 and 82% to be EVs or hybrids by 2032.
“I’m not a strong believer in government mandates on consumers,” Meyer told WHYY news in Wilmington. “The mechanism we take has yet to be determined, but I’m assuring Delawareans that the electric vehicle mandate will not go into effect.”
None of the backlash against EVs is to say that they are a bad thing or that the industry will fail. It’s simply that, in some instances, EVs were rolled out before automakers and policymakers got the kinks out.
A report from Real Clear Investigations that was published last week reveals similarly poor planning within the solar and wind industries. While their absence of emissions obviously benefits the environment, it seems nobody thought too much about what to do with the 500 million solar panels and 73,000 wind turbines in the U.S. once they stop working.
Expired solar panels currently create thousands of tons of waste per year, but, by the time the present generation of panels is ready to be retired in the 2040s, the waste tonnage is projected to rise into the millions. Currently, 90% of dead panels end up in landfills.
Meanwhile, disassembling decommissioned wind turbines requires massive manpower and fleets of vehicles to transport the components, which typically end up in landfills or warehouses. Alternately, the turbines may be left intact, becoming blights on the landscape or, if they are based offshore, they may find their final resting place on the ocean floor.
So, clearly, there are substantial advancements yet to be made in the disposal of green-tech waste. Until these developments materialize, the overall benefits of green technology will be minimized by the problems on the back end.
But, while bugs are being worked out, people still expect their power-reliant devices to work properly. They expect to have power and service—without interruption. This demands energy sources that can be harnessed reliably, which, in some instances, may not yet include renewables.
There is, of course, a non-renewable source that has zero emissions and proven reliability: nuclear energy. While the industry will be forever stigmatized by past catastrophes, nuclear safety advancements have come a long way since the deadly accidents at Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) and even Fukushima, Japan (2011).
This doesn’t mean that nuclear power is a long-range solution, as it also produces waste that needs to be disposed. But, since a total switch to renewables in the long-term may depend heavily on non-renewable sources in the short-term, nuclear energy has to be given a fresh look because, unlike other non-renewable resources, it doesn’t produce greenhouse gases.
Another transitional measure would be to temporarily increase the use and production of other non-renewable resources. Now, logically, the world has to move in the direction of a renewable-based future, and we should aim to speed up that process.
At present, however, fossil fuel policy should be determined by a cost-benefit analysis. If we can tap non-renewable resources without doing significant environmental damage, then this strategy has to be considered as a possible means to facilitate a total transition to renewable energy in the future.
Portions of this post have been adapted from my book The Anti-Partisan Manifesto: How Parties and Partisanism Divide America and How to Shut Them Down. Buy the book here. For the time being, it is only available digitally. To read, download the Kindle app to your phone, your iPad or tablet, your Kindle device or your computer.