energy conservation and renewable energy essay

Essay Service Examples Environment Renewable Energy

Essay on Renewable Energy

Proper editing and formatting
Free revision, title page, and bibliography
Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Join our 150k of happy users

Get original paper written according to your instructions
Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

energy conservation and renewable energy essay

This Is the Future: Essay on Renewable Energy

Today the world population depends on nonrenewable energy resources. With the constantly growing demand for energy, natural gas, coal, and oil get used up and cannot replenish themselves.

Aside from limited supply, heavy reliance on fossil fuels causes planetary-scale damage. Sea levels are rising. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide increased the warming effect by 45% from 1990 to 2019. The only way to tackle the crisis is to start the transition to renewable energy now.

What is renewable energy? It is energy that comes from replenishable natural resources like sunlight, wind, thermal energy, moving water, and organic materials. Renewable resources do not run out. They are cost-efficient and renew faster than they are consumed. How does renewable energy save money? It creates new jobs, supports economic growth, and decreases inequitable fossil fuel subsidies.

At the current rates of production, some fossil fuels will not even last another century. This is why the future depends on reliable and eco-friendly resources. This renewable energy essay examines the types and benefits of renewable energy and its role in creating a sustainable future.

Top 5 Types of Renewable Energy: The Apollo Alliance Rankings

There are many natural resources that can provide people with clean energy. To make a list of the five most booming types of renewable energy on the market today, this energy essay uses data gathered by the Apollo Alliance. It is a project that aims to revolutionize the energy sector of the US with a focus on clean energy.

The Apollo Alliance unites businesses, community leaders, and environmental experts to support the transition to more sustainable and efficient living. Their expert opinion helped to compile information about the most common and cost-competitive sources of renewable energy. However, if you want to get some more in-depth research, you can entrust it to an essay writer . Here’s a quick overview of renewable energy resources that have a huge potential to substitute fossil fuels.

Solar Renewable Energy

The most abundant and practically endless resource is solar energy. It can be turned into electricity by photovoltaic systems that convert radiant energy captured from sunlight. Solar farms could generate enough energy for thousands of homes.

An endless supply is the main benefit of solar energy. The rate at which the Earth receives it is 10,000 times greater than people can consume it, as a paper writer points out based on their analysis of research findings. It can substitute fossil fuels and deliver people electricity, hot water, cooling, heat, etc.

The upfront investment in solar systems is rather expensive. This is one of the primary limitations that prevent businesses and households from switching to this energy source at once. However, the conclusion of solar energy is still favorable. In the long run, it can significantly decrease energy costs. Besides, solar panels are gradually becoming more affordable to manufacture and adopt, even at an individual level.

Wind Renewable Energy

Another clean energy source is wind. Wind farms use the kinetic energy of wind flow to convert it into electricity. The Appolo Alliance notes that, unlike solar farms, they can’t be placed in any location. To stay cost-competitive, wind farms should operate in windy areas. Although not all countries have the right conditions to use them on a large scale, wind farms might be introduced for some energy diversity. The technical potential for it is still tremendous.

Wind energy is clean and safe for the environment. It does not pollute the atmosphere with any harmful products compared to nonrenewable energy resources.

The investment in wind energy is also economically wise. If you examine the cost of this energy resource in an essay on renewable resources, you’ll see that wind farms can deliver electricity at a price lower than nonrenewable resources. Besides, since wind isn’t limited, its cost won’t be influenced by the imbalance of supply and demand.

Geothermal Renewable Energy

Natural renewable resources are all around us, even beneath the ground. Geothermal energy can be produced from the thermal energy from the Earth’s interior. Sometimes heat reaches the surface naturally, for example, in the form of geysers. But it can also be used by geothermal power plants. The Earth’s heat gets captured and converted to steam that turns a turbine. As a result, we get geothermal energy.

This source provides a significant energy supply while having low emissions and no significant footprint on land. A factsheet and essay on renewable resources state that geothermal plants will increase electricity production from 17 billion kWh in 2020 to 49.8 billion kWh in 2050.

However, this method is not without limitations. While writing a renewable resources essay, consider that geothermal energy can be accessed only in certain regions. Geological hotspots are off-limits as they are vulnerable to earthquakes. Yet, the quantity of geothermal resources is likely to grow as technology advances.

Ocean Renewable Energy

The kinetic and thermal energy of the ocean is a robust resource. Ocean power systems rely on:

Changes in sea level;
Wave energy;
Water surface temperatures;
The energy released from seawater and freshwater mixing.

Ocean energy is more predictable compared to other resources. As estimated by EPRI, it has the potential to produce 2640 TWh/yr. However, an important point to consider in a renewable energy essay is that the kinetic energy of the ocean varies. Yet, since it is ruled by the moon’s gravity, the resource is plentiful and continues to be attractive for the energy industry.

Wave energy systems are still developing. The Apollo energy corporation explores many prototypes. It is looking for the most reliable and robust solution that can function in the harsh ocean environment.

Another limitation of ocean renewable energy is that it may cause disruptions to marine life. Although its emissions are minimal, the system requires large equipment to be installed in the ocean.

Biomass Renewable Energy

Organic materials like wood and charcoal have been used for heating and lighting for centuries. There are a lot more types of biomass: from trees, cereal straws, and grass to processed waste. All of them can produce bioenergy.

Biomass can be converted into energy through burning or using methane produced during the natural process of decomposition. In an essay on renewable sources of energy, the opponents of the method point out that biomass energy is associated with carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, the amount of released greenhouse gases is much lower compared to nonrenewable energy use.

While biomass is a reliable source of energy, it is only suitable for limited applications. If used too extensively, it might lead to disruptions in biodiversity, a negative impact on land use, and deforestation. Still, Apollo energy includes biomass resources that become waste and decompose quickly anyway. These are organic materials like sawdust, chips from sawmills, stems, nut shells, etc.

What Is the Apollo Alliance?

The Apollo Alliance is a coalition of business leaders, environmental organizations, labor unions, and foundations. They all unite their efforts in a single project to harness clean energy in new, innovative ways.

Why Apollo? Similarly to President John F. Kennedy’s Apollo Project, Apollo energy is a strong visionary initiative. It is a dare, a challenge. The alliance calls for the integrity of science, research, technology, and the public to revolutionize the energy industry.

The project has a profound message. Apollo energy solutions are not only about the environment or energy. They are about building a new economy. The alliance gives hope to building a secure future for Americans.

What is the mission of the Apollo Alliance?

Achieve energy independence with efficient and limitless resources of renewable energy.
Pioneer innovation in the energy sector.
Build education campaigns and communication to inspire new perceptions of energy.
Create new jobs.
Reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Build healthier and happier communities.

The transformation of the industry will lead to planet-scale changes. The Apollo energy corporation can respond to the global environmental crisis and prevent climate change.

Apollo renewable energy also has the potential to become a catalyst for social change. With more affordable energy and new jobs in the industry, people can bridge the inequality divide and build stronger communities.

Why Renewable Energy Is Important for the Future

Renewable energy resources have an enormous potential to cover people’s energy needs on a global scale. Unlike fossil fuels, they are available in abundance and generate minimal to no emissions.

The burning of fossil fuels caused a lot of environmental problems—from carbon dioxide emissions to ocean acidification. Research this issue in more detail with academic assistance from essay writer online . You can use it to write an essay on renewable sources of energy to explain the importance of change and its global impact.

Despite all the damage people caused to the planet, there’s still hope to mitigate further repercussions. Every renewable energy essay adds to the existing body of knowledge we have today and advances research in the field. Here are the key advantages and disadvantages of alternative energy resources people should keep in mind.

Advantage of Green Energy

The use of renewable energy resources has a number of benefits for the climate, human well-being, and economy:

Renewable energy resources have little to no greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we take into account the manufacturing and recycling of the technologies involved, their impact on the environment is significantly lower compared to fossil fuels.
Renewable energy promotes self-sufficiency and reduces a country’s dependence on foreign fuel. According to a study, a 1% increase in the use of renewable energy increases economic growth by 0.21%. This gives socio-economic stability.
Due to a lack of supply of fossil fuels and quick depletion of natural resources, prices for nonrenewable energy keep increasing. In contrast, green energy is limitless and can be produced locally. In the long run, this allows decreasing the cost of energy.
Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy doesn’t emit air pollutants. This positively influences health and quality of life.
The emergence of green energy plants creates new jobs. Thus, Apollo energy solutions support the growth of local communities. By 2030, the transition to renewable energy is expected to generate 10.3 million new jobs.
Renewable energy allows decentralization of the industry. Communities get their independent sources of energy that are more flexible in terms of distribution.
Renewable energy supports equality. It has the potential to make energy more affordable to low-income countries and expand access to energy even in remote and less fortunate neighborhoods.

Disadvantages of Non-Conventional Energy Sources

No technology is perfect. Renewable energy resources have certain drawbacks too:

The production of renewable energy depends on weather conditions. For example, wind farms could be effective only in certain locations where the weather conditions allow it. The weather also makes it so that renewable energy cannot be generated around the clock.
The initial cost of renewable energy technology is expensive. Both manufacturing and installation require significant investment. This is another disadvantage of renewable resources. It makes them unaffordable to a lot of businesses and unavailable for widespread individual use. In addition, the return on investment might not be immediate.
Renewable energy technology takes up a lot of space. It may affect life in the communities where these clean energy farms are installed. They may also cause disruptions to wildlife in the areas.
One more limitation a renewable resources essay should consider is the current state of technology. While the potential of renewable energy resources is tremendous, the technology is still in its development phase. Therefore, renewable energy might not substitute fossil fuels overnight. There’s a need for more research, investment, and time to transition to renewable energy completely. Yet, some diversity of energy resources should be introduced as soon as possible.
Renewable energy resources have limited emissions, but they are not entirely pollution-free. The manufacturing process of equipment is associated with greenhouse gas emissions while, for example, the lifespan of a wind turbine is only 20 years.

For high school seniors eyeing a future rich with innovative endeavors in renewable energy or other fields, it's crucial to seek financial support early on. Explore the top 10 scholarships for high school seniors to find the right fit that can propel you into a future where you can contribute to the renewable energy movement and beyond. Through such financial support, the road to making meaningful contributions to a sustainable future becomes a tangible reality.

Renewable energy unlocks the potential for humanity to have clean energy that is available in abundance. It leads us to economic growth, independence, and stability. With green energy, we can also reduce the impact of human activity on the environment and stop climate change before it’s too late.

So what’s the conclusion of renewable energy? Transitioning to renewable energy resources might be challenging and expensive. However, most experts agree that the advantages of green energy outweigh any drawbacks. Besides, since technology is continuously evolving, we’ll be able to overcome most limitations in no time.

Frequently asked questions

She was flawless! first time using a website like this, I've ordered article review and i totally adored it! grammar punctuation, content - everything was on point

This writer is my go to, because whenever I need someone who I can trust my task to - I hire Joy. She wrote almost every paper for me for the last 2 years

Term paper done up to a highest standard, no revisions, perfect communication. 10s across the board!!!!!!!

I send him instructions and that's it. my paper was done 10 hours later, no stupid questions, he nailed it.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael is secretly a professor because he literally knows everything. HE DID SO WELL THAT MY PROF SHOWED MY PAPER AS AN EXAMPLE. unbelievable, many thanks

New posts to your inbox!

Stay in touch

News & Updates

The Future of Sustainable Energy

26 June, 2021

Share this on social media:

Building a sustainable energy future calls for leaps forward in both technology and policy leadership. State governments, major corporations and nations around the world have pledged to address the worsening climate crisis by transitioning to 100% renewable energy over the next few decades. Turning those statements of intention into a reality means undertaking unprecedented efforts and collaboration between disciplines ranging from environmental science to economics.

There are highly promising opportunities for green initiatives that could deliver a better future. However, making a lasting difference will require both new technology and experts who can help governments and organizations transition to more sustainable practices. These leaders will be needed to source renewables efficiently and create environmentally friendly policies, as well as educate consumers and policymakers. To maximize their impact, they must make decisions informed by the most advanced research in clean energy technology, economics, and finance.

Current Trends in Sustainability

The imperative to adopt renewable power solutions on a worldwide scale continues to grow even more urgent as the global average surface temperature hits historic highs and amplifies the danger from extreme weather events . In many regions, the average temperature has already increased by 1.5 degrees , and experts predict that additional warming could drive further heatwaves, droughts, severe hurricanes, wildfires, sea level rises, and even mass extinctions.

In addition, physicians warn that failure to respond to this dire situation could unleash novel diseases : Dr. Rexford Ahima and Dr. Arturo Casadevall of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine contributed to an article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation that explained how climate change could affect the human body’s ability to regulate its own temperature while bringing about infectious microbes that adapt to the warmer conditions.

World leaders have accepted that greenhouse gas emissions are a serious problem that must be addressed. Since the Paris Agreement was first adopted in December 2015, 197 nations have signed on to its framework for combating climate change and preventing the global temperature increase from reaching 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels.

Corporate giants made their own commitments to become carbon neutral by funding offsets to reduce greenhouse gases and gradually transitioning into using 100% renewable energy. Google declared its operations carbon neutral in 2017 and has promised that all data centers and campuses will be carbon-free by 2030. Facebook stated that it would eliminate its carbon footprint in 2020 and expand that commitment to all the organization’s suppliers within 10 years. Amazon ordered 100,000 electric delivery vehicles and has promised that its sprawling logistics operations will arrive at net-zero emissions by 2040.

Despite these promising developments, many experts say that nations and businesses are still not changing fast enough. While carbon neutrality pledges are a step in the right direction, they don’t mean that organizations have actually stopped using fossil fuels . And despite the intentions expressed by Paris Agreement signatories, total annual carbon dioxide emissions reached a record high of 33.5 gigatons in 2018, led by China, the U.S., and India.

“The problem is that what we need to achieve is so daunting and taxes our resources so much that we end up with a situation that’s much, much worse than if we had focused our efforts,” Ferraro said.

Recent Breakthroughs in Renewable Power

An environmentally sustainable infrastructure requires innovations in transportation, industry, and utilities. Fortunately, researchers in the private and public sectors are laying the groundwork for an energy transformation that could make the renewable energy of the future more widely accessible and efficient.

Some of the most promising areas that have seen major developments in recent years include:

Driving Electric Vehicles Forward

The technical capabilities of electric cars are taking great strides, and the popularity of these vehicles is also growing among consumers. At Tesla’s September 22, 2020 Battery Day event, Elon Musk announced the company’s plans for new batteries that can be manufactured at a lower cost while offering greater range and increased power output .

The electric car market has seen continuing expansion in Europe even during the COVID-19 pandemic, thanks in large part to generous government subsidies. Market experts once predicted that it would take until 2025 for electric car prices to reach parity with gasoline-powered vehicles. However, growing sales and new battery technology could greatly speed up that timetable .

Cost-Effective Storage For Renewable Power

One of the biggest hurdles in the way of embracing 100% renewable energy has been the need to adjust supply based on demand. Utilities providers need efficient, cost-effective ways of storing solar and wind power so that electricity is available regardless of weather conditions. Most electricity storage currently takes place in pumped-storage hydropower plants, but these facilities require multiple reservoirs at different elevations.

Pumped thermal electricity storage is an inexpensive solution to get around both the geographic limitations of hydropower and high costs of batteries. This approach, which is currently being tested , uses a pump to convert electricity into heat so it can be stored in a material like gravel, water, or molten salts and kept in an insulated tank. A heat engine converts the heat back into electricity as necessary to meet demand.

Unlocking the Potential of Microgrids

Microgrids are another area of research that could prove invaluable to the future of power. These systems can operate autonomously from a traditional electrical grid, delivering electricity to homes and business even when there’s an outage. By using this approach with power sources like solar, wind, or biomass, microgrids can make renewable energy transmission more efficient.

Researchers in public policy and engineering are exploring how microgrids could serve to bring clean electricity to remote, rural areas . One early effort in the Netherlands found that communities could become 90% energy self-sufficient , and solar-powered microgrids have now also been employed in Indian villages. This technology has enormous potential to change the way we access electricity, but lowering costs is an essential step to bring about wider adoption and encourage residents to use the power for purposes beyond basic lighting and cooling.

Advancing the Future of Sustainable Energy

There’s still monumental work to be done in developing the next generation of renewable energy solutions as well as the policy framework to eliminate greenhouse gases from our atmosphere. An analysis from the International Energy Agency found that the technologies currently on the market can only get the world halfway to the reductions needed for net-zero emissions by 2050.

To make it the rest of the way, researchers and policymakers must still explore possibilities such as:

Devise and implement large-scale carbon capture systems that store and use carbon dioxide without polluting the atmosphere
Establish low-carbon electricity as the primary power source for everyday applications like powering vehicles and heat in buildings
Grow the use of bioenergy harnessed from plants and algae for electricity, heat, transportation, and manufacturing
Implement zero-emission hydrogen fuel cells as a way to power transportation and utilities

However, even revolutionary technology will not do the job alone. Ambitious goals for renewable energy solutions and long-term cuts in emissions also demand enhanced international cooperation, especially among the biggest polluters. That’s why Jonas Nahm of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies has focused much of his research on China’s sustainable energy efforts. He has also argued that the international community should recognize China’s pivotal role in any long-term plans for fighting climate change.

As both the leading emitter of carbon dioxide and the No. 1 producer of wind and solar energy, China is uniquely positioned to determine the future of sustainability initiatives. According to Nahm, the key to making collaboration with China work is understanding the complexities of the Chinese political and economic dynamics. Because of conflicting interests on the national and local levels, the world’s most populous nation continues to power its industries with coal even while President Xi Jinping advocates for fully embracing green alternatives.

China’s fraught position demonstrates that economics and diplomacy could prove to be just as important as technical ingenuity in creating a better future. International cooperation must guide a wide-ranging economic transformation that involves countries and organizations increasing their capacity for producing and storing renewable energy.

It will take strategic thinking and massive investment to realize a vision of a world where utilities produce 100% renewable power while rows of fully electric cars travel on smart highways. To meet the challenge of our generation, it’s more crucial than ever to develop leaders who understand how to apply the latest research to inform policy and who can take charge of globe-spanning sustainable energy initiatives .

About the MA in Sustainable Energy (online) Program at Johns Hopkins SAIS

Created by Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies faculty with input from industry experts and employers, the Master of Arts in Sustainable Energy (online) program is tailored for the demands of a rapidly evolving sector. As a top-11 global university, Johns Hopkins is uniquely positioned to equip graduates with the skills they need to confront global challenges in the transition to renewable energy.

The MA in Sustainable Energy curriculum is designed to build expertise in finance, economics, and policy. Courses from our faculty of highly experienced researchers and practitioners prepare graduates to excel in professional environments including government agencies, utility companies, energy trade organizations, global energy governance organizations, and more. Students in the Johns Hopkins SAIS benefit from industry connections, an engaged network of more than 230,000 alumni, and high-touch career services.

Request Information

To learn more about the MA in Sustainable Energy (online) and download a brochure , fill out the fields below, or call +1 410-648-2495 or toll-free at +1 888-513-5303 to talk with one of our admissions counselors.

Johns Hopkins University has engaged AllCampus to help support your educational journey. AllCampus will contact you shortly in response to your request for information. About AllCampus . Privacy Policy . You may opt out of receiving communications at any time.

* All Fields are Required. Your Privacy is Protected.

Connect with us

Email: [email protected]
Local Phone: +1 410-648-2495 (Local)
Toll-Free Phone: +1 888-513-5303 (Toll-Free)

ENVIRONMENT

Renewable energy, explained

Solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, and geothermal power can provide energy without the planet-warming effects of fossil fuels.

Clean energy has far more to recommend it than just being "green." The growing sector creates jobs , makes electric grids more resilient, expands energy access in developing countries, and helps lower energy bills. All of those factors have contributed to a renewable energy renaissance in recent years, with wind and solar setting new records for electricity generation .

For the past 150 years or so, humans have relied heavily on coal, oil, and other fossil fuels to power everything from light bulbs to cars to factories. Fossil fuels are embedded in nearly everything we do, and as a result, the greenhouse gases released from the burning of those fuels have reached historically high levels .

As greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape into space, average temperatures on the surface are rising . Global warming is one symptom of climate change, the term scientists now prefer to describe the complex shifts affecting our planet’s weather and climate systems. Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas , and a range of other impacts .

Of course, renewables—like any source of energy—have their own trade-offs and associated debates. One of them centers on the definition of renewable energy. Strictly speaking, renewable energy is just what you might think: perpetually available, or as the U.S. Energy Information Administration puts it, " virtually inexhaustible ." But "renewable" doesn't necessarily mean sustainable, as opponents of corn-based ethanol or large hydropower dams often argue. It also doesn't encompass other low- or zero-emissions resources that have their own advocates, including energy efficiency and nuclear power.

Types of renewable energy sources

Hydropower: For centuries, people have harnessed the energy of river currents, using dams to control water flow. Hydropower is the world's biggest source of renewable energy by far, with China, Brazil, Canada, the U.S., and Russia the leading hydropower producers . While hydropower is theoretically a clean energy source replenished by rain and snow, it also has several drawbacks.

Large dams can disrupt river ecosystems and surrounding communities , harming wildlife and displacing residents. Hydropower generation is vulnerable to silt buildup, which can compromise capacity and harm equipment. Drought can also cause problems. In the western U.S., carbon dioxide emissions over a 15-year period were 100 megatons higher than they normally would have been, according to a 2018 study , as utilities turned to coal and gas to replace hydropower lost to drought. Even hydropower at full capacity bears its own emissions problems, as decaying organic material in reservoirs releases methane.

Dams aren't the only way to use water for power: Tidal and wave energy projects around the world aim to capture the ocean's natural rhythms. Marine energy projects currently generate an estimated 500 megawatts of power —less than one percent of all renewables—but the potential is far greater. Programs like Scotland’s Saltire Prize have encouraged innovation in this area.

Wind: Harnessing the wind as a source of energy started more than 7,000 years ago . Now, electricity-generating wind turbines are proliferating around the globe, and China, the U.S., and Germany are the leading wind energy producers. From 2001 to 2017 , cumulative wind capacity around the world increased to more than 539,000 megawatts from 23,900 mw—more than 22 fold.

Some people may object to how wind turbines look on the horizon and to how they sound, but wind energy, whose prices are declining , is proving too valuable a resource to deny. While most wind power comes from onshore turbines, offshore projects are appearing too, with the most in the U.K. and Germany. The first U.S. offshore wind farm opened in 2016 in Rhode Island, and other offshore projects are gaining momentum . Another problem with wind turbines is that they’re a danger for birds and bats, killing hundreds of thousands annually , not as many as from glass collisions and other threats like habitat loss and invasive species, but enough that engineers are working on solutions to make them safer for flying wildlife.

Can energy harnessed from Earth’s interior help power the world?

How the historic climate bill will dramatically reduce U.S. emissions

We took the Great American Road Trip—in electric cars

Solar: From home rooftops to utility-scale farms, solar power is reshaping energy markets around the world. In the decade from 2007 and 2017 the world's total installed energy capacity from photovoltaic panels increased a whopping 4,300 percent .

In addition to solar panels, which convert the sun's light to electricity, concentrating solar power (CSP) plants use mirrors to concentrate the sun's heat, deriving thermal energy instead. China, Japan, and the U.S. are leading the solar transformation, but solar still has a long way to go, accounting for around two percent of the total electricity generated in the U.S. in 2017. Solar thermal energy is also being used worldwide for hot water, heating, and cooling.

Biomass: Biomass energy includes biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel , wood and wood waste, biogas from landfills, and municipal solid waste. Like solar power, biomass is a flexible energy source, able to fuel vehicles, heat buildings, and produce electricity. But biomass can raise thorny issues.

Critics of corn-based ethanol , for example, say it competes with the food market for corn and supports the same harmful agricultural practices that have led to toxic algae blooms and other environmental hazards. Similarly, debates have erupted over whether it's a good idea to ship wood pellets from U.S. forests over to Europe so that it can be burned for electricity. Meanwhile, scientists and companies are working on ways to more efficiently convert corn stover , wastewater sludge , and other biomass sources into energy, aiming to extract value from material that would otherwise go to waste.

Geothermal: Used for thousands of years in some countries for cooking and heating, geothermal energy is derived from the Earth’s internal heat . On a large scale, underground reservoirs of steam and hot water can be tapped through wells that can go a mile deep or more to generate electricity. On a smaller scale, some buildings have geothermal heat pumps that use temperature differences several feet below ground for heating and cooling. Unlike solar and wind energy, geothermal energy is always available, but it has side effects that need to be managed, such as the rotten egg smell that can accompany released hydrogen sulfide.

Ways to boost renewable energy

Cities, states, and federal governments around the world are instituting policies aimed at increasing renewable energy. At least 29 U.S. states have set renewable portfolio standards —policies that mandate a certain percentage of energy from renewable sources, More than 100 cities worldwide now boast at least 70 percent renewable energy, and still others are making commitments to reach 100 percent . Other policies that could encourage renewable energy growth include carbon pricing, fuel economy standards, and building efficiency standards. Corporations are making a difference too, purchasing record amounts of renewable power in 2018.

Wonder whether your state could ever be powered by 100 percent renewables? No matter where you live, scientist Mark Jacobson believes it's possible. That vision is laid out here , and while his analysis is not without critics , it punctuates a reality with which the world must now reckon. Even without climate change, fossil fuels are a finite resource, and if we want our lease on the planet to be renewed, our energy will have to be renewable.

5 environmental victories from 2021 that offer hope

Activists fear a new threat to biodiversity—renewable energy

How the Ukraine war is accelerating Germany's renewable energy transition

3 ways COVID-19 is making us rethink energy and emissions

Let’s not waste this crucial moment: We need to stop abusing the planet

Best of the World
Environment
Paid Content

History & Culture

History & Culture
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Your US State Privacy Rights
Children's Online Privacy Policy
Interest-Based Ads
About Nielsen Measurement
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Nat Geo Home
Attend a Live Event
Book a Trip
Inspire Your Kids
Shop Nat Geo
Visit the D.C. Museum
Learn About Our Impact
Support Our Mission
Advertise With Us
Customer Service
Renew Subscription
Manage Your Subscription
Work at Nat Geo
Sign Up for Our Newsletters
Contribute to Protect the Planet

Energy Conservation

From childhood, we have been taught the principle of turning off devices or appliances when not in use. Usually, we turn off the fan, light, AC, refrigerator when we move out of home or when not in use. We adopt these practices not only to save money but also to reduce the consumption of energy. Appropriate behavior and habits can help in energy conservation. In this article, let us know the techniques of energy conservation in detail.

What is Energy Conservation?

Energy conservation is the act of reducing the usage and wastage of energy. Switching off the AC, light, etc., when nobody is in the room are a few practices that help in energy conservation. We know energy is a broad term and is the fundamental source of living. Energy is classified into various types depending on its nature. Energy conservation is the means of reducing the consumption of energy.

To reduce the environmental impact on society, energy conservation measures are being imparted. Remember, by saving energy, you are protecting the environment directly. We know that energy is precious. Energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be transformed from one form to another.

The best examples to demonstrate energy transformation from one form to another are:

The microphone is a device to convert sound energy into electrical energy.
The solar panel is used to convert sunlight to electrical energy.
Shafts in the windmill rotate to convert mechanical energy into electrical energy.

Note: Energy conservation day has been celebrated on December 14 every year since 1991.

Read more: Energy and Classification of Energy

Best Ways to Conserve Energy in Daily Life

Adjust your day-to-day behaviours to turn off devices and appliances when not in use. Purchase devices and appliances which consume less energy.
Adapt smart power strips: Do you know power or energy is consumed when the appliances are not in use. Yes, appliances draw power from outlets and are referred to as phantom loads. These smart power strips will help to cut down on phantom-load costs and save energy.
Refrigerators are one of the main appliances that consume power. Keep the setting of the refrigerator low to save energy.
Using CFL and LED bulbs to save energy. Regular incandescent bulbs consume more energy than CFL and LED.
Clean or replace air filters as recommended. Air conditioners (AC) and heaters consume more energy than other appliances. Cleaning or replacing air filters improves efficiency and consumes less energy.
Operate dishwasher and washing machines in a full load. To get the most energy-saving use from each run cycle.
Using a laptop instead of desktop computers can save considerable energy.
Install water-saver showerheads to help with conserving hot water and save power.
Use a slow cooker, toaster oven, or microwave oven over a conventional oven. Also, use utensils made of ceramic and glass.
Cycling is the best way to save fuel.
Walking instead of driving also saves energy.
Skip the dryer on a breezy day and dry clothes on the clothesline.

Benefits of Conservation of Energy

Energy conservation helps in :

Saves the cost and lowers your utility bills.
Prolongs the existence of fossil fuels.
Protects the environment.
Reduces pollution.

Energy conservation day is celebrated on the 14th of December every year.

Frequently Asked Questions – FAQs

Do cfl and led help in energy conservation.

Yes, CFL and LED consume less power than traditional fluorescent lamps and help in energy saving.

State law of conservation of energy

The law of conservation of energy states that “energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can only be converted from one form to another”

Give an example to explain energy transformation from one form to another.

Energy transformation is seen in solar panels, where sunlight is converted into electrical energy.

Explain two ways in which energy can be saved in day-to-day life.

Adapting smart power strips helps to reduce the loss of energy.
Operating a washing machine or dishwasher in full load helps to consume less energy than operating in half-load.

What are the ways in which energy can be transferred?

Mechanically – By the action of force
Electrically – Electrically
By Radiation – By Light waves or Sound waves
By Heating – By conduction, convection, or radiation

What is energy conservation?

Energy conservation is the means of reducing the consumption of energy.

What are the benefits of energy conservation?

The following are the benefits of energy conservation:

Saves the cost and lowers your utility bills

Watch the video and find out conservation measures we can take to save the natural resources depleting at an alarming rate.

Stay tuned with BYJU’S to know more about energy, types of energy and energy conservation in detail.

Put your understanding of this concept to test by answering a few MCQs. Click Start Quiz to begin!

Select the correct answer and click on the "Finish" button Check your score and explanations at the end of the quiz

Visit BYJU'S for all Physics related queries and study materials

Your result is as below

Request OTP on Voice Call

PHYSICS Related Links

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Renewable Energy Explained

Solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, and geothermal power can provide energy without the planet-warming effects of fossil fuels.

Chemistry, Conservation, Earth Science, Engineering

Braes of Doune Wind Farm

As of 2017, wind turbines, like the Braes of Doune wind farm near Stirling, Scotland, are now producing 539,000 megawatts of power around the world—22 times more than 16 years before. Unfortunately, this renewable, clean energy generator isn't perfect.

Photograph by Jim Richardson

In any discussion about climate change , renewable energy usually tops the list of changes the world can implement to stave off the worst effects of rising temperatures. That's because renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, don't emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Clean energy has far more to recommend it than just being "green." The growing sector creates jobs, makes electric grids more resilient, expands energy access in developing countries, and helps lower energy bills. All of those factors have contributed to a renewable energy renaissance in recent years, with wind and solar setting new records for electricity generation. For the past 150 years or so, humans have relied heavily on coal, oil, and other fossil fuels to power everything from light bulbs to cars to factories. Fossil fuels are embedded in nearly everything we do, and as a result, the greenhouse gases released from the burning of those fuels have reached historically high levels. As greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape into space, average temperatures on the surface are rising. Global warming is one symptom of climate change, the term scientists now prefer to describe the complex shifts affecting our planet’s weather and climate systems. Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas, and a range of other impacts. Of course, renewables—like any source of energy—have their own trade-offs and associated debates. One of them centers on the definition of renewable energy. Strictly speaking, renewable energy is just what you might think: perpetually available, or as the United States Energy Information Administration puts it, "virtually inexhaustible." But "renewable" doesn't necessarily mean sustainable, as opponents of corn-based ethanol or large hydropower dams often argue. It also doesn't encompass other low- or zero-emissions resources that have their own advocates, including energy efficiency and nuclear power. Types of Renewable Energy Sources Hydropower: For centuries, people have harnessed the energy of river currents, using dams to control water flow. Hydropower is the world's biggest source of renewable energy by far, with China, Brazil, Canada, the U.S., and Russia being the leading hydropower producers. While hydropower is theoretically a clean energy source replenished by rain and snow, it also has several drawbacks. Large dams can disrupt river ecosystems and surrounding communities, harming wildlife, and displacing residents. Hydropower generation is vulnerable to silt buildup, which can compromise capacity and harm equipment. Drought can also cause problems. In the western U.S., carbon dioxide emissions over a 15-year period were 100 megatons higher than they would have been with normal precipitation levels, according to a 2018 study, as utilities turned to coal and gas to replace hydropower lost to drought. Even hydropower at full capacity bears its own emissions problems, as decaying organic material in reservoirs releases methane. Dams aren't the only way to use water for power: Tidal and wave energy projects around the world aim to capture the ocean's natural rhythms. Marine energy projects currently generate an estimated 500 megawatts of power—less than one percent of all renewables—but the potential is far greater. Programs like Scotland’s Saltire Prize have encouraged innovation in this area. Wind: Harnessing the wind as a source of energy started more than 7,000 years ago. Now, electricity-generating wind turbines are proliferating around the globe, and China, the U.S., and Germany are the world's leading wind-energy producers. From 2001 to 2017, cumulative wind capacity around the world increased to more than 539,000 megawatts from 23,900 megawatts—more than 22 fold. Some people may object to how wind turbines look on the horizon and to how they sound, but wind energy, whose prices are declining, is proving too valuable a resource to deny. While most wind power comes from onshore turbines, offshore projects are appearing too, with the most in the United Kingdom and Germany. The first U.S. offshore wind farm opened in 2016 in Rhode Island, and other offshore projects are gaining momentum. Another problem with wind turbines is that they’re a danger for birds and bats, killing hundreds of thousands annually, not as many as from glass collisions and other threats like habitat loss and invasive species, but enough that engineers are working on solutions to make them safer for flying wildlife. Solar: From home rooftops to utility-scale farms, solar power is reshaping energy markets around the world. In the decade from 2007 and 2017 the world's total installed energy capacity from photovoltaic panels increased a whopping 4,300 percent. In addition to solar panels, which convert the sun's light to electricity, concentrating solar power (CSP) plants use mirrors to concentrate the sun's heat, deriving thermal energy instead. China, Japan, and the U.S. are leading the solar transformation, but solar still has a long way to go, accounting for around just two percent of the total electricity generated in the U.S. in 2017. Solar thermal energy is also being used worldwide for hot water, heating, and cooling. Biomass: Biomass energy includes biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, wood, wood waste, biogas from landfills, and municipal solid waste. Like solar power, biomass is a flexible energy source, able to fuel vehicles, heat buildings, and produce electricity. But biomass can raise thorny issues. Critics of corn-based ethanol, for example, say it competes with the food market for corn and supports the same harmful agricultural practices that have led to toxic algae blooms and other environmental hazards. Similarly, debates have erupted over whether it's a good idea to ship wood pellets from U.S. forests over to Europe so that it can be burned for electricity. Meanwhile, scientists and companies are working on ways to more efficiently convert corn stover, wastewater sludge, and other biomass sources into energy, aiming to extract value from material that would otherwise go to waste. Geothermal: Used for thousands of years in some countries for cooking and heating, geothermal energy is derived from Earth’s internal heat. On a large scale, underground reservoirs of steam and hot water can be tapped through wells that can go a two kilometers deep or more to generate electricity. On a smaller scale, some buildings have geothermal heat pumps that use temperature differences several meters below ground for heating and cooling. Unlike solar and wind energy, geothermal energy is always available, but it has side effects that need to be managed, such as the rotten-egg smell that can accompany released hydrogen sulfide. Ways To Boost Renewable Energy Cities, states, and federal governments around the world are instituting policies aimed at increasing renewable energy. At least 29 U.S. states have set renewable portfolio standards—policies that mandate a certain percentage of energy from renewable sources. More than 100 cities worldwide now boast receiving at least 70 percent of their energy from renewable sources, and still others are making commitments to reach 100 percent. Other policies that could encourage renewable energy growth include carbon pricing, fuel economy standards, and building efficiency standards. Corporations are making a difference too, purchasing record amounts of renewable power in 2018. Wonder whether your state could ever be powered by 100 percent renewables? No matter where you live, scientist Mark Jacobson believes it's possible. That vision is laid out here , and while his analysis is not without critics , it punctuates a reality with which the world must now reckon. Even without climate change, fossil fuels are a finite resource, and if we want our lease on the planet to be renewed, our energy will have to be renewable.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

June 21, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Published: 03 August 2020

Impacts of climate change on energy systems in global and regional scenarios

Seleshi G. Yalew ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7304-6750 1 , 2 , 3 ,
Michelle T. H. van Vliet 2 , 4 ,
David E. H. J. Gernaat ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4994-1453 1 , 5 ,
Fulco Ludwig 2 ,
Ariel Miara ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7089-4765 6 , 7 ,
Chan Park ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4994-6855 8 ,
Edward Byers ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0349-5742 9 ,
Enrica De Cian 10 , 11 ,
Franziska Piontek 12 ,
Gokul Iyer ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3565-7526 13 ,
Ioanna Mouratiadou ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3541-6271 1 ,
James Glynn ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7004-0153 14 ,
Mohamad Hejazi 13 ,
Olivier Dessens 15 ,
Pedro Rochedo ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-0893 16 ,
Robert Pietzcker ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9403-6711 12 ,
Roberto Schaeffer ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3709-7323 16 ,
Shinichiro Fujimori ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7897-1796 17 , 18 ,
Shouro Dasgupta ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4080-8066 10 , 11 ,
Silvana Mima 19 ,
Silvia R. Santos da Silva ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6493-1475 13 , 20 ,
Vaibhav Chaturvedi 21 ,
Robert Vautard ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5544-9903 22 &
Detlef P. van Vuuren ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0398-2831 1 , 5

Nature Energy volume 5 , pages 794–802 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

206 Citations

128 Altmetric

Metrics details

Projection and prediction

Although our knowledge of climate change impacts on energy systems has increased substantially over the past few decades, there remains a lack of comprehensive overview of impacts across spatial scales. Here, we analyse results of 220 studies projecting climate impacts on energy systems globally and at the regional scale. Globally, a potential increase in cooling demand and decrease in heating demand can be anticipated, in contrast to slight decreases in hydropower and thermal energy capacity. Impacts at the regional scale are more mixed and relatively uncertain across regions, but strongest impacts are reported for South Asia and Latin America. Our assessment shows that climate impacts on energy systems at regional and global scales are uncertain due partly to the wide range of methods and non-harmonized datasets used. For a comprehensive assessment of climate impacts on energy, we propose a consistent multi-model assessment framework to support regional-to-global-scale energy planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

Purchase on SpringerLink
Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

A framework for national scenarios with varying emission reductions

Spread in climate policy scenarios unravelled

A multi-model analysis of long-term emissions and warming implications of current mitigation efforts

Data availability.

All data that support the findings of this study presented in the figures are provided in the Source Data section associated with this manuscript. Source data are provided with this paper.

Bruckner, T. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

Schaeffer, R. et al. Energy sector vulnerability to climate change: a review. Energy 38 , 1–12 (2012).

Google Scholar

Ebinger, J. & Vergara, W. Climate Impacts on Energy Systems: Key Issues for Energy Sector Adaptation (The World Bank, 2011).

Crook, J. A., Jones, L. A., Forster, P. M. & Crook, R. Climate change impacts on future photovoltaic and concentrated solar power energy output. Energ. Environ, Sci. 4 , 3101–3109 (2011).

Owusu, P. A. & Asumadu-Sarkodie, S. A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation. Cogent. Eng. 3 , 1167990 (2016).

Bartos, M. D. & Chester, M. V. Impacts of climate change on electric power supply in the Western United States. Nat. Clim. Change 5 , 748–752 (2015).

Karnauskas, K. B., Lundquist, J. K. & Zhang, L. Southward shift of the global wind energy resource under high carbon dioxide emissions. Nar. Geosci. 11 , 38–43 (2018).

Craig, M. T. et al. A review of the potential impacts of climate change on bulk power system planning and operations in the United States. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 98 , 255–267 (2018).

Van Vliet, M. T. et al. Vulnerability of US and European electricity supply to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2 , 676 (2012).

Liu, L., Hejazi, M., Li, H., Forman, B. & Zhang, X. Vulnerability of US thermoelectric power generation to climate change when incorporating state-level environmental regulations. Nat. Ener. 2 , 17109 (2017).

Ciscar, J.-C. & Dowling, P. Integrated assessment of climate impacts and adaptation in the energy sector. Energy Econ. 46 , 531–538 (2014).

Ravestein, P., van der Schrier, G., Haarsma, R., Scheele, R. & van den Broek, M. Vulnerability of European intermittent renewable energy supply to climate change and climate variability. Renew. Sust. Ener. Rev. 97 , 497–508 (2018).

Perera, A., Nik, V. M., Chen, D., Scartezzini, J. L. & Hong, T. Quantifying the impacts of climate change and extreme climate events on energy systems. Nat. Energy 5 , 150–159 (2020).

IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).

Isaac, M. & van Vuuren, D. P. Modeling global residential sector energy demand for heating and air conditioning in the context of climate change. Energy Policy 37 , 507–521 (2009).

IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

Cinner, J. E. et al. Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 177–123 (2018).

Lumbroso, D., Woolhouse, G. & Jones, L. A review of the consideration of climate change in the planning of hydropower schemes in sub-Saharan Africa. Clim. Change 133 , 621–633 (2015).

Kabir, E., Kumar, P., Kumar, S., Adelodun, A. A. & Kim, K.-H. Solar energy: potential and future prospects. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 82 , 894–900 (2018).

Pryor, S. & Barthelmie, R. Climate change impacts on wind energy: a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14 , 430–437 (2010).

Berndes, G., Hoogwijk, M. & Van den Broek, R. The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenerg. 25 , 1–28 (2003).

Li, D. H., Yang, L. & Lam, J. C. Impact of climate change on energy use in the built environment in different climate zones–a review. Energy 42 , 103–112 (2012).

Auffhammer, M. & Mansur, E. T. Measuring climatic impacts on energy consumption: a review of the empirical literature. Energy Econ. 46 , 522–530 (2014).

Mideksa, T. K. & Kallbekken, S. The impact of climate change on the electricity market: a review. Energy Policy 38 , 3579–3585 (2010).

Chandramowli, S. N. & Felder, F. A. Impact of climate change on electricity systems and markets–a review of models and forecasts. Sust. Energ. Technol. Assess. 5 , 62–74 (2014).

Mikellidou, C. V., Shakou, L. M., Boustras, G. & Dimopoulos, C. Energy critical infrastructures at risk from climate change: a state of the art review. Safety Science 110 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.022 (2017).

Stanton, M. C. B., Dessai, S. & Paavola, J. A systematic review of the impacts of climate variability and change on electricity systems in Europe. Energy 109 , 1148–1159 (2016).

Cronin, J., Anandarajah, G. & Dessens, O. Climate change impacts on the energy system: a review of trends and gaps. Clim. Change 151 , 79–93 (2018).

Barnett, T. P., Adam, J. C. & Lettenmaier, D. P. Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438 , 303 (2005).

Chilkoti, V., Bolisetti, T. & Balachandar, R. Climate change impact assessment on hydropower generation using multi-model climate ensemble. Renew. Energ. 109 , 510–517 (2017).

Fan, J.-L. Impacts of climate change on hydropower generation in China. Comput. Simulat. 167 , 4–18 (2018).

MathSciNet Google Scholar

Teotónio, C., Fortes, P., Roebeling, P., Rodriguez, M. & Robaina-Alves, M. Assessing the impacts of climate change on hydropower generation and the power sector in Portugal: a partial equilibrium approach. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 74 , 788–799 (2017).

Hamududu, B. & Killingtveit, A. Assessing climate change impacts on global hydropower. Energies 5 , 305–322 (2012).

Van Vliet, M. T., Wiberg, D., Leduc, S. & Riahi, K. Power-generation system vulnerability and adaptation to changes in climate and water resources. Nat. Clim. Change 6 , 375–380 (2016).

Van Vliet, M. et al. Multi-model assessment of global hydropower and cooling water discharge potential under climate change. Global Environ. Change 40 , 156–170 (2016).

Turner, S. W., Ng, J. Y. & Galelli, S. Examining global electricity supply vulnerability to climate change using a high-fidelity hydropower dam model. Sci. Total Environ. 590 , 663–675 (2017).

Zhou, Y. et al. A comprehensive view of global potential for hydro-generated electricity. Energ. Environ. Sci. 8 , 2622–2633 (2015).

Raje, D. & Mujumdar, P. Reservoir performance under uncertainty in hydrologic impacts of climate change. Adv. Water Resour. 33 , 312–326 (2010).

Gaudard, L., Gilli, M. & Romerio, F. Climate change impacts on hydropower management. Water Resource. Manag. 27 , 5143–5156 (2013).

Mohor, G. S., Rodriguez, D. A., Tomasella, J. & Júnior, J. L. S. Exploratory analyses for the assessment of climate change impacts on the energy production in an Amazon run-of-river hydropower plant. J. Hydrol. Reg. Studies 4 , 41–59 (2015).

Fant, C., Schlosser, C. A. & Strzepek, K. The impact of climate change on wind and solar resources in southern Africa. Appl. Energy 161 , 556–564 (2016).

Wachsmuth, J. et al. How will renewable power generation be affected by climate change? The case of a Metropolitan Region in Northwest Germany. Energy 58 , 192–201 (2013).

Jerez, S. et al. The impact of climate change on photovoltaic power generation in Europe. Nat. Commun. 6 , 10014 (2015).

Bartók, B. et al. Projected changes in surface solar radiation in CMIP5 global climate models and in EURO-CORDEX regional climate models for Europe. Climate Dynam. 49 , 2665–2683 (2017).

Davy, R., Gnatiuk, N., Pettersson, L. & Bobylev, L. Climate change impacts on wind energy potential in the European domain with a focus on the Black Sea. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 81 , 1652–1659 (2017).

Carvalho, D., Rocha, A., Gómez-Gesteira, M. & Santos, C. S. Potential impacts of climate change on European wind energy resource under the CMIP5 future climate projections. Renew. Energ. 101 , 29–40 (2017).

Hueging, H., Haas, R., Born, K., Jacob, D. & Pinto, J. G. Regional changes in wind energy potential over Europe using regional climate model ensemble projections. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 52 , 903–917 (2013).

Tobin, I. et al. Vulnerabilities and resilience of European power generation to 1.5 °C, 2 °C and 3 °C warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 , 044024 (2018).

Vautard, R. et al. Regional climate model simulations indicate limited climatic impacts by operational and planned European wind farms. Nat. Commun. 5 , 3196 (2014).

Jerez, S. et al. Future changes, or lack thereof, in the temporal variability of the combined wind-plus-solar power production in Europe. Renew. Energy 139 , 251–260 (2019).

De Lucena, A. F. P., Szklo, A. S., Schaeffer, R. & Dutra, R. M. The vulnerability of wind power to climate change in Brazil. Renew. Energy 35 , 904–912 (2010).

Pereira, E. B., Martins, F. R., Pes, M. P., da Cruz Segundo, E. I. & Lyra, Ad. A. The impacts of global climate changes on the wind power density in Brazil. Renew. Energy 49 , 107–110 (2013).

Breslow, P. B. & Sailor, D. J. Vulnerability of wind power resources to climate change in the continental United States. Renew. Energy 27 , 585–598 (2002).

Sailor, D. J., Smith, M. & Hart, M. Climate change implications for wind power resources in the Northwest United States. Renew. Energy 33 , 2393–2406 (2008).

De Jong, P. et al. Estimating the impact of climate change on wind and solar energy in Brazil using a South American regional climate model. Renew. Energy 141 , 390–401 (2019).

Tuck, G., Glendining, M. J., Smith, P., House, J. I. & Wattenbach, M. The potential distribution of bioenergy crops in Europe under present and future climate. Biomass Bioenerg. 30 , 183–197 (2006).

Bellarby, J., Wattenbach, M., Tuck, G., Glendining, M. J. & Smith, P. The potential distribution of bioenergy crops in the UK under present and future climate. Biomass Bioenerg. 34 , 1935–1945 (2010).

Harvey, M. & Pilgrim, S. The new competition for land: food, energy, and climate change. Food Policy 36 , S40–S51 (2011).

Kyle, P., Müller, C., Calvin, K. & Thomson, A. Meeting the radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways in a world with agricultural climate impacts. Earth’s Future 2 , 83–98 (2014).

Miara, A., Vörösmarty, C. J., Stewart, R. J., Wollheim, W. M. & Rosenzweig, B. Riverine ecosystem services and the thermoelectric sector: strategic issues facing the Northeastern United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 , 025017 (2013).

Miara, A. et al. Climate and water resource change impacts and adaptation potential for US power supply. Nat. Clim. Change 7 , 793–798 (2017).

Miara, A. et al. Climate-water adaptation for future US electricity infrastructure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 , 14029–14040 (2019).

Byers, E., Hall, J., Amezaga, J., O’Donnell, G. & Leathard, A. Water and climate risks to power generation with carbon capture and storage. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 , 024011 (2016).

Angeles, M. E., González, J. E. & Ramírez, N. Impacts of climate change on building energy demands in the intra-Americas region. Theoret. Appl. Climatol 133 , 59–72 (2018).

Fan, J.-L., Hu, J.-W. & Zhang, X. Impacts of climate change on electricity demand in China: an empirical estimation based on panel data. Energy 170 , 880–888 (2019).

Taseska, V., Markovska, N. & Callaway, J. M. Evaluation of climate change impacts on energy demand. Energy 48 , 88–95 (2012).

Allen, M. R., Fernandez, S. J., Fu, J. S. & Olama, M. M. Impacts of climate change on sub-regional electricity demand and distribution in the southern United States. Nat. Energy 1 , 16103 (2016).

Zhou, Y. et al. Modeling the effect of climate change on US state-level buildings energy demands in an integrated assessment framework. Appl. Energy 113 , 1077–1088 (2014).

Hadley, S. W., Erickson Iii, D. J., Hernandez, J. L., Broniak, C. T. & Blasing, T. J. Responses of energy use to climate change: a climate modeling study. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 , https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026652 (2006).

Eom, J., Clarke, L., Kim, S. H., Kyle, P. & Patel, P. China’s building energy demand: long-term implications from a detailed assessment. Energy 46 , 405–419 (2012).

McFarland, J. et al. Impacts of rising air temperatures and emissions mitigation on electricity demand and supply in the United States: a multi-model comparison. Clim. Change 131 , 111–125 (2015).

Clarke, L. et al. Effects of long-term climate change on global building energy expenditures. Energy Econ. 72 , 667–677 (2018).

Labriet, M. et al. Worldwide impacts of climate change on energy for heating and cooling. Mit. Adapt. Strat. Global Change 20 , 1111–1136 (2015).

Van Ruijven, B. J., De Cian, E. & Wing, I. S. Amplification of future energy demand growth due to climate change. Nat. Commun. 10 , 2762 (2019).

De Cian, E. & Wing, I. S. Global energy consumption in a warming climate. Environ. Res. Econ. 72 , 365–410 (2019).

Auffhammer, M., Baylis, P. & Hausman, C. H. Climate change is projected to have severe impacts on the frequency and intensity of peak electricity demand across the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 1886–1891 (2017).

De Cian, E., Lanzi, E. & Roson, R. Seasonal temperature variations and energy demand. Clim. Change 116 , 805–825 (2013).

Invidiata, A. & Ghisi, E. Impact of climate change on heating and cooling energy demand in houses in Brazil. Energ. Buildings 130 , 20–32 (2016).

Wang, H. & Chen, Q. Impact of climate change heating and cooling energy use in buildings in the United States. Energ. Buildings 82 , 428–436 (2014).

Hamlet, A. F., Lee, S.-Y., Mickelson, K. E. & Elsner, M. M. Effects of projected climate change on energy supply and demand in the Pacific Northwest and Washington State. Clim. Change 102 , 103–128 (2010).

Davis, L. W. & Gertler, P. J. Contribution of air conditioning adoption to future energy use under global warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 5962–5967 (2015).

Park, C. et al. Avoided economic impacts of energy demand changes by 1.5 and 2 °C climate stabilization. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 , 045010 (2018).

Waite, M. et al. Global trends in urban electricity demands for cooling and heating. Energy 127 , 786–802 (2017).

Morakinyo, T. E. et al. Estimates of the impact of extreme heat events on cooling energy demand in Hong Kong. Renew. Energy 142 , 73–84 (2019).

Moazami, A., Nik, V. M., Carlucci, S. & Geving, S. Impacts of future weather data typology on building energy performance–Investigating long-term patterns of climate change and extreme weather conditions. Appl. Energy 238 , 696–720 (2019).

Dirks, J. A. et al. Impacts of climate change on energy consumption and peak demand in buildings: a detailed regional approach. Energy 79 , 20–32 (2015).

D’Oca, S., Hong, T. & Langevin, J. The human dimensions of energy use in buildings: a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 81 , 731–742 (2018).

Poortinga, W., Steg, L. & Vlek, C. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environ. Behav. 36 , 70–93 (2004).

De Cian, E., Pavanello, F., Randazzo, T., Mistry, M. N. & Davide, M. Households’ adaptation in a warming climate. Air conditioning and thermal insulation choices. Environ. Sci. Policy 100 , 136–157 (2019).

Castleton, H. F., Stovin, V., Beck, S. B. & Davison, J. B. Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy Buildings 42 , 1582–1591 (2010).

Jones, P., Lannon, S. & Patterson, J. Retrofitting existing housing: how far, how much? Building Res. Info. 41 , 532–550 (2013).

Da Silva Soito, J. L. & Freitas, M. A. V. J. R. Amazon and the expansion of hydropower in Brazil: vulnerability, impacts and possibilities for adaptation to global climate change. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 15 , 3165–3177 (2011).

Cohen, S. M., Macknick, J., Averyt, K. & Meldrum, J. Modeling Climate-Water Impacts on Electricity Sector Capacity Expansion (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2014).

Mima, S. & Criqui, P. The costs of climate change for the European energy system, an assessment with the POLES model. Environ. Model. Ass. 20 , 303–319 (2015).

Ackerman, F. & Stanton, E. A. The Cost of Climate Change: What We’ll Pay if Global Warming Continues Unchecked (Natural Resources Defence Council, 2008).

Turner, S. W., Hejazi, M., Kim, S. H., Clarke, L. & Edmonds, J. Climate impacts on hydropower and consequences for global electricity supply investment needs. Energy 141 , 2081–2090 (2017).

Van der Linden, P. & Mitchell, J. (eds) ENSEMBLES: Climate Change and its Impacts—Summary of Research and Results from the ENSEMBLES Project (European Environment Agency, 2009).

Rübbelke, D. & Vögele, S. Impacts of climate change on European critical infrastructures: the case of the power sector. Environ. Sci. Policy 14 , 53–63 (2011).

Pryor, S. & Barthelmie, R. Assessing the vulnerability of wind energy to climate change and extreme events. Clim. Change 121 , 79–91 (2013).

Miller, N. L., Hayhoe, K., Jin, J. & Auffhammer, M. Climate, extreme heat, and electricity demand in California. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 47 , 1834–1844 (2008).

Forzieri, G. et al. Escalating impacts of climate extremes on critical infrastructures in Europe. Global Environ. Change 48 , 97–107 (2018).

Bartos, M. et al. Impacts of rising air temperatures on electric transmission ampacity and peak electricity load in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 , 114008 (2016).

Panteli, M. & Mancarella, P. Influence of extreme weather and climate change on the resilience of power systems: Impacts and possible mitigation strategies. Electric Power Syst. Res. 127 , 259–270 (2015).

Dowling, P. The impact of climate change on the European energy system. Energy Policy 60 , 406–417 (2013).

Haddeland, I. et al. Multimodel estimate of the global terrestrial water balance: setup and first results. J. Hydrometeorol. 12 , 869–884 (2011).

Schewe, J. et al. Multimodel assessment of water scarcity under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 3245–3250 (2014).

Rosenzweig, C. et al. The agricultural model intercomparison and improvement project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agri. Forest Meteorol. 170 , 166–182 (2013).

van Vuuren, D. P. & Carter, T. R. Climate and socio-economic scenarios for climate change research and assessment: reconciling the new with the old. Clim. Change 122 , 415–429 (2014).

Van Vuuren, D. P. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: scenario matrix architecture. Clim. Change 122 , 373–386 (2014).

O’Neill, B. C. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Change 122 , 387–400 (2014).

Wiedenhofer, D., Lenzen, M. & Steinberger, J. K. Energy requirements of consumption: urban form, climatic and socio-economic factors, rebounds and their policy implications. Energy Policy 63 , 696–707 (2013).

Frieler, K. et al. Assessing the impacts of 1.5 C global warming–simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b). Geosci. Model Dev. 10 , 4321–4345 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the JPI Climate initiative and participating grant institutes for funding the ISIpedia project. We also thank J. Burrough for professional advice on the English of a near-final draft. E.d.C. has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 756194 (ENERGYA). J.G. is supported by a research grant from Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under the SFI-NSFC Partnership Programme, grant no. 17/NSFC/5181. D.P.v.V., R.S. and D.E.H.J.G. are supported by the Horizon 2020 NAVIGATE project, and D.P.v.V., R.S. and D.E.H.J.G. also acknowledge support from the COMMIT and Horizon 2020 ENGAGE project. F.P. acknowledges support through the project ENGAGE funded in the framework of the Leibniz Competition (SAW-2016-PIK-1), as well as through the project CHIPS, part of AXIS, an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and funded by FORMAS (SE), DLR/BMBF (DE, grant no. 01LS19XXY), AEI (ES) and ANR (FR) with cofunding by the European Union (grant no. 776608). R.S. acknowledges the financial support from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), from the National Institute of Science and Technology for Climate Change Phase 2 under CNPq grant no. 465501/2014-1 and the National Coordination for High Level Education and Training (CAPES) grant no. 88887.136402/2017-00, all from Brazil. A.M. acknowledges support from the US Department of Energy, Office of Science’s Integrated Multisector Multiscale Modelling project and National Science Foundation’s Water Sustainability and Climate grant no. 1360445. This work was authored in part by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (A.M.), operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the US Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. S.F. is supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-1908 and 2-2002) provided by the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency, Japan. C.P. is supported by Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) through Climate Change R&D Programme, funded by the Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) (2018001310003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

Seleshi G. Yalew, David E. H. J. Gernaat, Ioanna Mouratiadou & Detlef P. van Vuuren

Water Systems and Global Change Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands

Seleshi G. Yalew, Michelle T. H. van Vliet & Fulco Ludwig

Policy Analysis, Department of Multi-Actor Systems, Technical University of Delft, Delft, the Netherlands

Seleshi G. Yalew

Department of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

Michelle T. H. van Vliet

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency-PBL, The Hague, the Netherlands

David E. H. J. Gernaat & Detlef P. van Vuuren

Advanced Science Research Center, GC/CUNY, New York City, NY, USA

Ariel Miara

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA

Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Urban Science, University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis-IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria

Edward Byers

Fondazione CMCC, Venice, Italy

Enrica De Cian & Shouro Dasgupta

Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Venice, Italy

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany

Franziska Piontek & Robert Pietzcker

Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, College Park, MD, USA

Gokul Iyer, Mohamad Hejazi & Silvia R. Santos da Silva

MaREI Centre, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

James Glynn

Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London, London, UK

Olivier Dessens

Programa de Planejamento Energético, COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Pedro Rochedo & Roberto Schaeffer

Center for Social and Environmental Systems Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan

Shinichiro Fujimori

Department of Environmental Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

Laboratoire d’économie appliquée de Grenoble, Grenoble, France

Silvana Mima

Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Silvia R. Santos da Silva

Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi, India

Vaibhav Chaturvedi

Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et l’Environnement-LSCE, Paris, France

Robert Vautard

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.G.Y. and D.P.v.V. codesigned the study. S.G.Y. collected and analysed data, and cowrote the initial draft manuscript with D.P.v.V. S.G.Y., D.P.v.V. and M.T.H.v.V. performed sectoral analysis of energy systems. S.G.Y., D.P.v.V., M.T.H.v.V., D.E.H.J.G., F.L., A.M., C.P., E.B., E.d.C., F.P., G.I., I.M., J.G., M.H., O.D., P.R., R.P., R.S., S.F., S.D., S.M., S.R.S.d.S., V.C. and R.V. contributed to the review of sectoral and regional climate impacts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seleshi G. Yalew .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Tables 1–3, Note 1 and Fig. 1.

Source data

Source data fig. 2.

Data points of articles, their category and years published.

Source Data Fig. 3

Data points of article category, warming level and scenario years.

Source Data Fig. 4

Data points of percentage changes of climate impact per region.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Yalew, S.G., van Vliet, M.T.H., Gernaat, D.E.H.J. et al. Impacts of climate change on energy systems in global and regional scenarios. Nat Energy 5 , 794–802 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0664-z

Download citation

Received : 13 August 2019

Accepted : 01 July 2020

Published : 03 August 2020

Issue Date : October 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0664-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Extreme weather events on energy systems: a comprehensive review on impacts, mitigation, and adaptation measures.

Ana C. R. Gonçalves
Xurxo Costoya
Margarida L. R. Liberato

Sustainable Energy Research (2024)

High-resolution meteorology with climate change impacts from global climate model data using generative machine learning

Grant Buster
Brandon N. Benton
Ryan N. King

Nature Energy (2024)

Sustainable pathways towards universal renewable electricity access in Africa

Rebecca Peters
Jürgen Berlekamp
Christiane Zarfl

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (2024)

Climate change impacts on the extreme power shortage events of wind-solar supply systems worldwide during 1980–2022

Dongsheng Zheng
Qiang Zhang

Nature Communications (2024)

Targeting net-zero emissions while advancing other sustainable development goals in China

Wenying Chen
Keywan Riahi

Nature Sustainability (2024)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Benefits of Renewable Energy Use

Published Jul 14, 2008 Updated Dec 20, 2017

Wind turbines and solar panels are an increasingly common sight. But why? What are the benefits of renewable energies—and how do they improve our health, environment, and economy?

This page explores the many positive impacts of clean energy, including the benefits of wind , solar , geothermal , hydroelectric , and biomass . For more information on their negative impacts—including effective solutions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate—see our page on The Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies .

Less global warming

Human activity is overloading our atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other global warming emissions . These gases act like a blanket, trapping heat. The result is a web of significant and harmful impacts , from stronger, more frequent storms, to drought, sea level rise, and extinction.

In the United States, about 29 percent of global warming emissions come from our electricity sector. Most of those emissions come from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas [ 1 , 2 ].

What is CO 2 e?

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, but other air pollutants—such as methane—also cause global warming. Different energy sources produce different amounts of these pollutants. To make comparisons easier, we use a carbon dioxide equivalent , or CO2e—the amount of carbon dioxide required to produce an equivalent amount of warming.

In contrast, most renewable energy sources produce little to no global warming emissions. Even when including “life cycle” emissions of clean energy (ie, the emissions from each stage of a technology’s life—manufacturing, installation, operation, decommissioning), the global warming emissions associated with renewable energy are minimal [ 3 ].

The comparison becomes clear when you look at the numbers. Burning natural gas for electricity releases between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (CO2E/kWh); coal emits between 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of CO2E/kWh. Wind , on the other hand, is responsible for only 0.02 to 0.04 pounds of CO2E/kWh on a life-cycle basis; solar 0.07 to 0.2; geothermal 0.1 to 0.2; and hydroelectric between 0.1 and 0.5.

Renewable electricity generation from biomass can have a wide range of global warming emissions depending on the resource and whether or not it is sustainably sourced and harvested.

Chart showing electricity generation technologies powered by renewable resources

Increasing the supply of renewable energy would allow us to replace carbon-intensive energy sources and significantly reduce US global warming emissions.

For example, a 2009 UCS analysis found that a 25 percent by 2025 national renewable electricity standard would lower power plant CO2 emissions 277 million metric tons annually by 2025—the equivalent of the annual output from 70 typical (600 MW) new coal plants [ 4 ].

In addition, a ground-breaking study by the US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) explored the feasibility of generating 80 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2050. They found that renewable energy could help reduce the electricity sector’s emissions by approximately 81 percent [ 5 ].

Improved public health

The air and water pollution emitted by coal and natural gas plants is linked with breathing problems, neurological damage, heart attacks, cancer, premature death, and a host of other serious problems. The pollution affects everyone: one Harvard University study estimated the life cycle costs and public health effects of coal to be an estimated $74.6 billion every year . That’s equivalent to 4.36 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced—about one-third of the average electricity rate for a typical US home [ 6 ].

Most of these negative health impacts come from air and water pollution that clean energy technologies simply don’t produce. Wind, solar, and hydroelectric systems generate electricity with no associated air pollution emissions. Geothermal and biomass systems emit some air pollutants, though total air emissions are generally much lower than those of coal- and natural gas-fired power plants.

In addition, wind and solar energy require essentially no water to operate and thus do not pollute water resources or strain supplies by competing with agriculture, drinking water, or other important water needs. In contrast, fossil fuels can have a significant impact on water resources : both coal mining and natural gas drilling can pollute sources of drinking water, and all thermal power plants, including those powered by coal, gas, and oil, withdraw and consume water for cooling.

Biomass and geothermal power plants, like coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, may require water for cooling. Hydroelectric power plants can disrupt river ecosystems both upstream and downstream from the dam. However, NREL's 80-percent-by-2050 renewable energy study, which included biomass and geothermal, found that total water consumption and withdrawal would decrease significantly in a future with high renewables [ 7 ].

Inexhaustible energy

Strong winds, sunny skies, abundant plant matter, heat from the earth, and fast-moving water can each provide a vast and constantly replenished supply of energy. A relatively small fraction of US electricity currently comes from these sources, but that could change: studies have repeatedly shown that renewable energy can provide a significant share of future electricity needs, even after accounting for potential constraints [ 9 ].

In fact, a major government-sponsored study found that clean energy could contribute somewhere between three and 80 times its 2013 levels, depending on assumptions [8]. And the previously mentioned NREL study found that renewable energy could comfortably provide up to 80 percent of US electricity by 2050.

Getting Excited About Energy: Expanding Renewables in the US

Jobs and other economic benefits.

Compared with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital intensive, the renewable energy industry is more labor intensive. Solar panels need humans to install them; wind farms need technicians for maintenance.

This means that, on average, more jobs are created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels.

Renewable energy already supports thousands of jobs in the United States. In 2016, the wind energy industry directly employed over 100,000 full-time-equivalent employees in a variety of capacities, including manufacturing, project development, construction and turbine installation, operations and maintenance, transportation and logistics, and financial, legal, and consulting services [ 10 ]. More than 500 factories in the United States manufacture parts for wind turbines, and wind power project installations in 2016 alone represented $13.0 billion in investments [ 11 ].

Other renewable energy technologies employ even more workers. In 2016, the solar industry employed more than 260,000 people, including jobs in solar installation, manufacturing, and sales, a 25% increase over 2015 [ 12 ]. The hydroelectric power industry employed approximately 66,000 people in 2017 [ 13 ]; the geothermal industry employed 5,800 people [ 14] .

Increased support for renewable energy could create even more jobs. The 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists study of a 25-percent-by-2025 renewable energy standard found that such a policy would create more than three times as many jobs (more than 200,000) as producing an equivalent amount of electricity from fossil fuels [ 15 ].

In contrast, the entire coal industry employed 160,000 people in 2016 [ 26 ].

In addition to the jobs directly created in the renewable energy industry, growth in clean energy can create positive economic “ripple” effects. For example, industries in the renewable energy supply chain will benefit, and unrelated local businesses will benefit from increased household and business incomes [ 16 ].

Local governments also benefit from clean energy, most often in the form of property and income taxes and other payments from renewable energy project owners. Owners of the land on which wind projects are built often receive lease payments ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 per megawatt of installed capacity, as well as payments for power line easements and road rights-of-way. They may also earn royalties based on the project’s annual revenues. Farmers and rural landowners can generate new sources of supplemental income by producing feedstocks for biomass power facilities.

UCS analysis found that a 25-by-2025 national renewable electricity standard would stimulate $263.4 billion in new capital investment for renewable energy technologies, $13.5 billion in new landowner income from? biomass production and/or wind land lease payments, and $11.5 billion in new property tax revenue for local communities [ 17 ].

Stable energy prices

Renewable energy is providing affordable electricity across the country right now, and can help stabilize energy prices in the future.

Although renewable facilities require upfront investments to build, they can then operate at very low cost (for most clean energy technologies, the “fuel” is free). As a result, renewable energy prices can be very stable over time.

Moreover, the costs of renewable energy technologies have declined steadily, and are projected to drop even more. For example, the average price to install solar dropped more than 70 percent between 2010 and 2017 [ 20 ]. The cost of generating electricity from wind dropped 66 percent between 2009 and 2016 [ 21 ]. Costs will likely decline even further as markets mature and companies increasingly take advantage of economies of scale.

In contrast, fossil fuel prices can vary dramatically and are prone to substantial price swings. For example, there was a rapid increase in US coal prices due to rising global demand before 2008, then a rapid fall after 2008 when global demands declined [ 23 ]. Likewise, natural gas prices have fluctuated greatly since 2000 [ 25 ].

Using more renewable energy can lower the prices of and demand for natural gas and coal by increasing competition and diversifying our energy supplies. And an increased reliance on renewable energy can help protect consumers when fossil fuel prices spike.

Barriers to Renewable Energy Technologies

Reliability and resilience.

Wind and solar are less prone to large-scale failure because they are distributed and modular. Distributed systems are spread out over a large geographical area, so a severe weather event in one location will not cut off power to an entire region. Modular systems are composed of numerous individual wind turbines or solar arrays. Even if some of the equipment in the system is damaged, the rest can typically continue to operate.

For example, Hurricane Sandy damaged fossil fuel-dominated electric generation and distribution systems in New York and New Jersey and left millions of people without power. In contrast, renewable energy projects in the Northeast weathered Hurricane Sandy with minimal damage or disruption [ 25 ].

Water scarcity is another risk for non-renewable power plants. Coal, nuclear, and many natural gas plants depend on having sufficient water for cooling, which means that severe droughts and heat waves can put electricity generation at risk. Wind and solar photovoltaic systems do not require water to generate electricity and can operate reliably in conditions that may otherwise require closing a fossil fuel-powered plant. (For more information, see How it Works: Water for Electricity .)

The risk of disruptive events will also increase in the future as droughts, heat waves, more intense storms, and increasingly severe wildfires become more frequent due to global warming—increasing the need for resilient, clean technologies.

References:

[1] Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015.

[2] Energy Information Agency (EIA). 2017. How much of the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are associated with electricity generation?

[3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2011. IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation . Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1075 pp. (Chapter 9).

[4] Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2009. Clean Power Green Jobs .

[5] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures Study . Volume 1, pg. 210.

[6] Epstein, P.R.,J. J. Buonocore, K. Eckerle, M. Hendryx, B. M. Stout III, R. Heinberg, R. W. Clapp, B. May, N. L. Reinhart, M. M. Ahern, S. K. Doshi, and L. Glustrom. 2011. Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal in “Ecological Economics Reviews.” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1219: 73–98.

[7] Renewable Electricity Futures Study . 2012.

[8] NREL. 2016. Estimating Renewable Energy Economic Potential in the United States: Methodology and Initial Results .

[9] Renewable Electricity Futures Study . 2012.

IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation . Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2011.

UCS. 2009. Climate 2030: A national blueprint for a clean energy economy .

[10] American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2017. AWEA U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report: Year Ending 2016. Washington, D.C.: American Wind Energy Association.

[11] Wiser, Ryan, and Mark Bolinger. 2017. 2016 Wind Technologies Market Report. U.S. Department of Energy.

[12] The Solar Foundation. 2017. National Solar Jobs Census 2016.

[13] Navigant Consulting. 2009. Job Creation Opportunities in Hydropower .

[14] Geothermal Energy Association. 2010. Green Jobs through Geothermal Energy .

[15] UCS. 2009. Clean Power Green Jobs .

[16] Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Assessing the Multiple Benefits of Clean Energy: A Resource for States . Chapter 5.

[17] UCS. 2009. Clean Power Green Jobs .

[18] Deyette, J., and B. Freese. 2010. Burning coal, burning cash: Ranking the states that import the most coal . Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.

[20] SEIA. 2017. Solar Market Insight Report 2017 Q2.

[21] AWEA. 2017. AWEA U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report: Year Ending 2016. Washington, D.C.: American Wind Energy Association.

[22] UCS. 2009. Clean Power Green Jobs .

[23] UCS. 2011. A Risky Proposition: The financial hazards of new investments in coal plants .

[24] EIA. 2013. U.S. Natural Gas Wellhead Price .

[25] Unger, David J. 2012. Are renewables stormproof? Hurricane Sandy tests solar, wind . The Christian Science Monitor. November 19.

[26] Department of Energy. 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report

Related resources

A group of people marching with a sign that reads "Solar power to the people."

The Electric Utility Toolkit

Proximity of power stations to EJ neighborhoods.

Siting for a Cleaner, More Equitable Grid in Massachusetts

Barriers and Solutions to Building Clean Energy in California

Accelerating Clean Energy Ambition

We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing, you accept our use of cookies. Learn more .

Support our work

Other ways to give.

Honor & memory
Become a member
Give monthly
Make a planned gift
Gift memberships

Your donation at work

IEEE Account

Change Username/Password
Update Address

Purchase Details

Payment Options
Order History
View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

Communications Preferences
Profession and Education
Technical Interests
US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
Contact & Support
About IEEE Xplore
Accessibility
Terms of Use
Nondiscrimination Policy
Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Energy transition in Russia

Original Research
Open access
Published: 11 September 2019
Volume 3 , pages 73–80, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Tatiana Mitrova 1 &
Yuriy Melnikov 1

31k Accesses

59 Citations

48 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article provides an overview of Russian energy policy in the context of the global energy transition. Russia, ranking fourth in the world in primary energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, adheres to the strategy of “business as usual” and relies on fossil fuels. Decarbonization of the energy sector is not yet on the horizon: a skeptical attitude towards the problem of global climate change prevails among stakeholders. GDP energy intensity remains high, supported by relatively low energy prices and high cost of capital. The share of solar and wind energy in the energy balance is insignificant and is not expected to exceed 1% by 2040. The challenge for Russia in the coming years is to develop a new strategy for the development of its energy sector, which enters a zone of high turbulence—even in the absence of the influence of the climate change agenda—due to increasing global competition, growing technological isolation, and financial constraints.

Energy and the Economy in Russia

Implications of the Global Energy Transition on Russia

China Mainland’s Energy Transition: How to Overcome Financial, Societal, and Institutional Challenges in the Long Term

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Energy transition, in a broad sense, can be defined as the next, or fourth, in a series of similar fundamental structural transformations of the global energy sector. Smil [ 1 ] distinguishes the first energy transition—from biomass to coal—within which the share of coal in the energy balance increased from 5 to 50% during the period from 1840 to 1900. The second energy transition is associated with the spread of oil—its share rose from 3% in 1915 to 45% in 1975—and the third led to the partial displacement of both coal and oil by natural gas (with the growth of its share from 3% in 1930 to 23% in 2017). In all these transitions, the economic efficiency or availability of new energy sources compared with old sources played an important role. Today we are witnessing the beginning of the fourth energy transition: the share of renewables (without hydro) as a percentage of total primary energy consumption was 3% in 2017, but it is expanding very quickly. In this fourth energy transition, unlike the previous three, a new driver is becoming critically important—combating global climate change—which results in the establishment of compulsory energy sector decarbonization targets.

In a narrower sense, energy transition is a translation of the German term “Energiewende”, which came into international use in the early 2010s after the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. As one of the most ambitious [ 2 , 3 ] decarbonization projects at a national scale (reduction in greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions of 40% by 2020 and 80–95% by 2050 from 1990 levels), the Energiewende is an example of large-scale climate-driven energy sector transformation.

Today, energy transition is driven by a complex of different drivers: the climate agenda, technological progress and the availability of new technology solutions able to dramatically increase the efficiency of the energy sector and transform its traditional way of functioning, the desire among all countries to ensure the competitiveness of their national economies and boost their development of affordable energy, and last but not least, the need to increase energy security. Achieving these objectives involves addressing the three pillars of the energy transition—the so-called three D’s: decarbonization, decentralization, and digitization. This commonly used schematization provides a convenient instrument with which to assess the depth of energy transition penetration in different countries, including the Russian Federation.

Russia is quite an important player in the global energy system: with just 3% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) and 2% of the global population, it provides 10% of global primary energy production, 5% of global primary energy consumption, and 16% of international energy trade [ 4 ]. Russia is the world’s largest exporter of energy resources (#2 for oil exports, #1 for gas exports, and #3 for coal exports in 2017, according to BP and the International Energy Agency [IEA] [ 5 , 6 ]). It ranks fourth in the world—after China, the USA, and India—in primary energy consumption, production of electricity, and carbon dioxide emissions due to the utilization of oil, gas, and coal for combustion-related activities [ 5 ]. Given this significant input, Russia’s strategic behavior regarding the energy transition is important not only for the country itself, but also for the rest of the world.

There are several factors which define Russia’s attitude towards the energy transition:

Macroeconomics (including the role of hydrocarbon revenues for the sustainability of its economic system, speed of economic growth, and investment availability, as well as technological and financial sanctions);

Institutional framework of the energy sector;

Climate policy;

Technology policy.

Russian macroeconomics

For Russia, as for many other resource-rich and energy-exporting countries, the energy transition creates new long-term challenges, questioning the sustainability of the entire economy, which is highly dependent on hydrocarbon export revenues. Since the beginning of the 2000s, Russia has managed to increase energy exports dramatically: from 2000 to 2005, exports grew by an unprecedented 56% [ 4 ], exceeding the total energy exports of the USSR, providing an incredible acceleration of the national economy and strengthening the country’s position on the international stage as an “energy superpower”. But with the global financial-economic crises in 2008, energy export growth was halted. The post-crisis years of 2011–2014 saw still very high oil prices, but stagnant export volumes. Lack of petro-dollar revenues has resulted in GDP stagnation at an oil price of 110 $/bbl, which is clear evidence of deep structural economic problems. Oil and gas export revenues have recently declined from the heights of 2008–2012 under the impact of falling prices for hydrocarbons. Nonetheless, even in 2017, hydrocarbons provided 25% of GDP and 39% of the country’s federal budget revenues, 65% of foreign earnings from exports, and almost a quarter of overall investments in the national economy [ 7 ].

Globally rising renewables targets and the transition towards a decarbonization paradigm are regarded in Russia as a significant threat to hydrocarbon export revenues, and thus to Russian economic security [ 8 ]. However, the global market balance is undergoing a fundamental shift, and the role of hydrocarbons will inevitably change during the next two decades. According to estimates by the Energy Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ERI RAS), with the transformation of the global markets and reduced call for Russian hydrocarbons, the contribution of oil and gas to Russian GDP will decline by approximately half, from 31% in 2015 to 13–17% by 2040 (depending on the scenario) [ 4 ]. Therefore, climate-related policies that target a reduction in GHG emissions from hydrocarbons can substantially affect the Russian economy.

Domestic oil and gas demand does not provide any meaningful offset to this decline. After high growth rates (7–8% per annum) in the first decade of this century, during the past few years Russia’s GDP projections have been revised downward to 1–2% per annum due to the systemic economic crisis, international financial and technological sanctions, and unfavorable investment climate [ 9 ]. A stagnant economy means stagnant domestic energy demand, frozen domestic regulated prices, and low investment availability for new technology deployment. These factors, which obviously limit investment capacity, are exacerbated by financial sanctions and the weak domestic financial market, with very high cost of capital.

Institutional design of the Russian energy sector

Historically, the Russian energy sector has developed in an extremely centralized way. In the Soviet Union, state-level single complex development plans (5-year plans) were accompanied by a hierarchical structuring of all the energy industries, managed from the “Center”, with single transportation, export and storage infrastructure, and centralized dispatching. Despite the many market reforms in the 1990s, the institutional framework of the Russian energy sector today is still characterized by high corporate concentration and a lack of market mechanisms. Decentralization as a concept faces strong resistance from both the authorities and major business stakeholders. It is quite frequently regarded as a threat to the stability and reliability of the national energy system, and to national security.

The Russian electricity market, after a long process of reform, finally comprises a variety of different companies, both state- and privately owned. State-owned companies dominate: in the power generation sector, they control about 70% of capacity, and in the transmission sector they own all high-voltage grids in the country (220 kV and more) and almost all distribution grids as well. Thermal power plants provide about 63% of the total Russian electricity mix and are largely based on outdated technologies (just 25% of gas-fueled power plants have gas turbine or combined-cycle technology, and just 22% of coal-fired power plants use supercritical technologies). At the same time, the Russian centralized heat supply and combined heat and power plants (CHP) are very well developed. Almost every city in the country has a unified heat supply system (about 50,000 in total), and CHPs account for more than 50% of the total fossil-fueled installed capacity.

State-controlled companies produce more than 50% of the oil [ 10 ], and domestic prices for oil products are de facto regulated through artificial “freeze agreements”, while the natural gas market is dominated by state-owned Gazprom, with gas prices for both residential and industrial consumers regulated by the government and currently frozen at the level of inflation [ 11 ]. Three decades after a command economy under the Soviet Union, low prices for energy in Russia are still regarded as a “public good”, and any attempt to increase them sparks strong protests from consumers. The rather cheap energy does not create incentives for energy efficiency improvements, or for the modernization of existing assets with high specific fuel consumption.

The controversial and complicated institutional design of the Russian energy sector, with strong state regulation and some elements of market competition, creates unclear signals for participants. It is associated with high transaction costs, and thus represents one of the major obstacles to large-scale energy transition in the country.

Russian climate policy

Decarbonization is the main driver of energy transition globally. Individual regions, countries, or their associations set goals for reducing the carbon footprint in the energy sector and introduce mechanisms to stimulate this process, such as carbon taxes or emissions trading systems. According to the World Bank Group [ 12 ], 51 carbon pricing initiatives have been implemented or are scheduled for implementation in regional, national, and subnational jurisdictions. During the period from 2008 to 2017, the carbon content of electricity decreased by 50–100 g CO 2 /kWh in the European Union, USA, Canada, China, Australia, and Kazakhstan, among other countries [ 13 ].

Despite this global trend, the climate agenda and the drive for decarbonization are not yet essential factors in the energy strategy of the Russian Federation. Indeed, the Paris Agreement is mentioned only once in the draft version of the “Russian Energy Strategy Up to 2035”, a key document defining the country’s strategic priorities in this critically important industry, which was submitted to the government by the Energy Ministry in 2015 but not approved until now: “In 2016, the Russian Federation signed the Paris Agreement, which included, among other, the development by 2020 of a strategy of socio-economic development with a low level of greenhouse gas emissions for the period until 2050. In order to minimize possible negative consequences for the Russian fuel and energy complex from the implementation of this agreement, an extremely weighted approach is needed to take some additional regulatory measures to counter climate change” [ 14 ]. This very cautious approach towards decarbonization is driven by several factors.

First, skepticism concerning the anthropogenic nature of climate change is prevalent among stakeholders, as senior representatives of the Russian Academy of Sciences and many state officials publicly express their doubts regarding the very concept of anthropogenically driven climate change. Second, following the economic downturn and economic restructuring in the 1990s, Russia has de facto sharply reduced GHG emissions. According to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) data, GHG emissions in 1998 compared to 1990 fell by 40.6%, excluding land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF), and by 50.9% including LULUCF. From 1998 to 2008, GHG emissions rose much more slowly than GDP—only about 16% over 11 years [ 15 ]. Third, as of 2017, the Russian electricity sector has a lower carbon footprint (in terms of g CO 2 per kWh) than, for example, Poland, Germany, Australia, China, India, Kazakhstan, the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, the USA, Chile, and South Africa [ 13 ]—around 35% of electricity is generated at carbon-free nuclear power plants and large hydropower plants, and 48% comes from gas [ 16 ], with gas gradually displacing petroleum products and coal in the fossil-fueled power plant fuel mix (the share of gas in fossil-fueled electricity generation increased from 69 to 74% in 2006–2017).

Obviously, the climate agreement affects Russia’s prospects for fossil fuel exports (especially for coal exports, but natural gas exports might also be substantially affected by a further increase in emission reduction goals). Moreover, modeling shows that climate-related actions outside of Russia could cause Russia’s GDP growth rate to decline by about half of a percentage point [ 17 ]. In addition, Russia faces the threat of market barriers for its exports of energy-intensive goods. Therefore, incentives to set ambitious national decarbonization targets are very low, especially assuming that these additional efforts would require significant investments, which are not available in light of the economic stagnation and financial sanctions, and would also require higher prices for energy, which is socially unacceptable.

This background explains why Russia has remained isolated from the global decarbonization trend for many years. Its participation in international environmental cooperation has always been determined primarily by external policy objectives. In Soviet times, participation in global environmental initiatives was a channel of collaboration with the West. In the 1990s, it was a means of integration into the international community and one of the major areas of cooperation with the USA. In the 2000s, Russia used the environmental agenda to gaining trade-offs from Western partners in order to attract foreign investment [ 18 ]. At present, an understanding of the potential benefits that may be reaped from the country’s natural capital is slowly taking form among Russian political and business elites, so in the longer term, Russia’s involvement in international environmental cooperation may increase. Meanwhile, the status quo is as follows: Russia signed the Paris Agreement in 2016, with voluntary obligations to limit anthropogenic GHG emissions to 70–75% of 1990 emissions by 2030, provided that the role of forests is taken into account as much as possible. But even with this very low target, which is nearly guaranteed, Russia has not yet ratified the agreement. Potential non-ratification would not improve Russia’s position (and would likely invite broader carbon adjustment measures from other regions). Diversification of the economy may help, but there is currently no clear path for its implementation.

Technology policy

While failing to give serious attention to climate policy, Russia is at the same time very sensitive to technology policy. The country’s leadership realizes that Russia clearly faces the risk of falling behind in developing new energy technologies that will become standard throughout the world. This is the reason for strict requirements on equipment localization for renewable energy and smart grids, and numerous import substitution programs. At the same time, energy transition technologies are definitely not the main focus of Russian technology policy: in the key state document defining priorities in this area—the state program “Energy Development” approved in 2014 and amended in 2019—only “promotion of innovative and digital development of the fuel and energy complex” is mentioned as a target, together with all the new technologies in hydrocarbon production and processing; nothing at all is said concerning low-carbon technologies [ 19 ].

Summing up Russia’s approach to energy transition and its drivers

The global “three D” drivers work differently in various countries, and Russia is a good example of just “1.5 D” actually being relevant: as shown above, the climate agenda is not relevant in Russia, while the competitiveness of the national economy and energy security are already provided by abundant cheap hydrocarbons (primarily natural gas). Thus, for Russia, technology policy and a desire to prevent the emergence of a large technology gap are the only truly important drivers of the energy transition. And among the “three D” pillars, decarbonization and, in part, decentralization are currently unacceptable to the country’s leadership and major stakeholders, leaving it mainly up to digitalization, which has indeed recently become the major focus for Russian energy sector investment.

Nevertheless, despite this limited motivation to promote the energy transition in Russia, there are some areas where potential benefits are huge and which could create real value for the Russian economy and attract investments provided there were proper regulations in place. These key areas are as follows:

Energy efficiency;

Renewables;

Decentralization and distributed energy resources;

Digitalization;

Energy efficiency

Factors related to Russia’s cold climate, vast distances, overlarge raw material structure, poor economic organization, and significant technological backwardness have resulted in its high-energy-intensity GDP—1.5 times the world average and that of the USA, and twice that of the leading European countries [ 4 ]. There is a substantial energy efficiency gap in almost all industrial technologies, not only with regard to the best available technologies, but also with “actual consumption abroad”. Even with comparatively low fuel and energy prices, the share of fuel and energy costs as a percentage of overall production costs is higher in Russia than in the developed and many developing countries [ 20 ]. Before the 2009 economic crisis, Russia was one of the world leaders in terms of GDP energy intensity reduction, and the gap between Russia and developed countries was narrowing dramatically—a 40% reduction in GDP energy intensity was achieved from 1998 to 2008; however, since 2009, this reduction has slowed and even reversed. According to Bashmakov [ 19 , 21 ], GDP energy intensity in Russia in 2017 was just 10% lower than in 2007 (at the same time, the initial energy efficiency target set in 2008 was a 40% decline in GDP energy intensity by 2020). Substantial federal budget subsidies were allocated, but very limited change occurred, and as a result the initial target was scaled back significantly, to 9.41%, and federal funding was discontinued [ 22 ].

Obviously, for such an energy-intensive economy, issues such as energy efficiency and conservation are key concerns for energy transition: according to IEA analyses, 30% of Russian primary energy consumption and enormous amounts of hydrocarbons (180 bcm of gas, 600 kb/d of oil and oil products, and more than 50 Mtce of coal per annum) could be saved if efficiency measures comparable to OECD targets were applied [ 23 ]. The main role in reducing the growth of energy consumption could be provided by structural energy conservation (changing the industrial and product structure of the economy), with an increase in the share of non-energy-intensive industries and products. The next most important factor in constraining the growth of energy consumption is technical energy conservation, which can provide total energy savings of 25–40%. However, it will be extremely difficult to close this the gap with the OECD countries—it actually widens due to the lack of investment potential for rapid asset renewal and energy efficiency funding. If we add to this the continuing administrative barriers and, most importantly, the unavailability of “long money” and credits for energy efficiency projects for small market participants, coupled with the persistence of relatively low natural gas prices in the long term, Russia remains stuck in a state of high energy intensity. Robust policies are needed to change this pattern, accompanied by a substantial increase in energy prices; potential benefits. however, are similarly significant.

The Russian energy balance is strongly dominated by fossil fuels, with natural gas providing 53% of total primary energy demand, and coal and oil-based liquid fuels each accounting for 18%. Carbon-free sources of energy are represented primarily by large-scale hydro and nuclear power (which enjoy strong state support). The total share of renewables (including hydro, solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal) was just 3.2% of Russia’s primary energy consumption in 2015. By the end of 2015, total installed renewable power generation capacity was 53.5 GW, representing about 20% of Russia’s total installed power generation capacity (253 GW), with hydropower providing nearly all of this capacity (51.5 GW), followed by bioenergy (1.35 GW). The installed capacity for solar and onshore wind amounted to 460 MW and 111 MW, respectively, as of 2015 [ 24 ].

According to the draft Energy Strategy of Russia for the period up to 2035 [ 14 ], the renewable energy share of Russia’s total primary energy consumption should increase from 3.2 to 4.9% by 2035. This includes Russia’s approved plan to expand its total solar photovoltaics (PV), onshore wind, and geothermal capacity to 5.9 GW by the end of 2024. The foundation for the growth of renewables in Russia is Decree 449, passed in 2013, which created a legal framework establishing a renewable energy capacity system for the country. The decree is designed to encourage the development of renewable energy, focusing in particular on wind and solar PV, and to a lesser extent on small-scale hydropower. The legislation sets out the terms for participation in the country’s renewables capacity markets. Under this system, energy developers of projects with an output of at least 5 MW can bid for capacity supply contracts with Russia’s Administrator of the Trading System in annual tenders. Winning suppliers are paid for both the capacity they add to the energy system and the energy they supply, based on long-term 15-year contracts with fixed tariffs. This regulation sets a legal and regulatory environment that allows developers to commercialize capacity as a separate commodity from the power itself, and ensures the economic attractiveness of these projects for the investors. In return, renewables developers are expected to ensure they can provide the promised capacity, on the right timeline, and with sufficient localization of the equipment [ 25 ].

Since then, annual renewable capacity additions rose from 57 MW in 2015 to 376 MW in 2018 (320 MW solar, 56 MW wind). What is more important is the significant decline in capital expenditures in renewables auctions during the past 2 years, by 35% for wind and 31% for solar, according to the Energy Ministry [ 24 ]. This process was not smooth; some capacity auction rounds have struggled to attract bids for a number of reasons, just over 2 GW of renewable capacity was awarded in tenders between 2013 and 2016, while the 2017 auction resulted in a total of 2.2 GW of wind, solar, and small hydro awarded in a single round, and in 2018, 1.08 GW of capacity was allocated among 39 projects. In 2017, five waste-to-energy projects were also introduced to the capacity market scheme, with a total capacity of 335 MW. But in 2018, the tender for waste energy capacity failed because of the strict new requirements for bidders to provide performance guarantees.

As technology policy is the main driver of Russia’s interest in renewables, the country is focused first of all on building its own renewables manufacturing capacity. Russia has set a fairly high level of local content required to qualify for the highest tariff rates, an essential component of the long-term feasibility of many Russian renewables projects. The percentage of Russian-made equipment required to avoid tariff penalties was relatively modest in the early days of the auction system, but has now risen to 65% for wind farms and small hydro and 70% for solar until 2020, with the long-term target of localization set by the government at 80%. These high levels have been behind several tenders, especially in wind farm development, for which there has been little to no Russian-made equipment. The requirements have encouraged foreign firms to partner with Russian power companies and manufacturers. Several international joint ventures have been established, including Fortum and state-owned technology investor Rusnano’s wind investment fund, and WRS Bashni, a partnership between Spanish developer Windar Renovables, Rusnano, and the Russian steel firm Severstal. Wind equipment was localized by Vestas Manufacturing Rus in the Nizhny Novgorod region, while Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) and Lagerwey are also entering the Russian market [ 25 ].

The problem is that the current support mechanism will expire in 2024—Russia’s unambitious renewables share targets and ambitious localization targets will be nearly fulfilled by this time—and the influx of foreign renewables developers may stop if no new incentives for renewables are created. However, in order to create these incentives, the Russian government should first determine the long-term role of renewables in its energy balance, which is quite difficult to do without a decarbonization agenda: as the country with the world’s largest natural gas reserves and the second largest reserves of thermal coal, Russia does not see real value in a transition from fossil fuels to zero-carbon energy sources. Despite the country’s massive potential in wind and solar resources and the virtually limitless land available for development, the availability of oil, gas, and coal is suppressing the development of clean energy. Diversifying this energy mix towards carbon-free energy sources is a challenging task: low prices for hydrocarbons and the unfavorable geographical dispersal of potential renewable resources from the point of their utilization (mainly concentrated in unpopulated areas with a long distance to the center of consumption), together with their comparatively high cost (e.g. low demand for new renewable capacity and high requirements for localization, resulting in high, uncompetitive per-unit cost) hinder the development of these energy sources in Russia.

According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) [ 23 ], Russia theoretically has the potential to increase its share of renewables from 4.9 to 11.3% of total primary energy consumption by 2030. However, without reassessment of its energy strategy priorities and wider transformation of its energy system, this may be difficult to achieve.

Decentralization and distributed energy resource potential in Russia’s centralized power system

Historically, the Russian energy system has developed in an extremely centralized way: Russia has one of the world’s largest national centralized power systems with a single dispatch control—as of 2017, the total length of its trunk networks was over 140,000 km, with over 2 million km of distribution networks and 246.9 GW installed capacity of power plants. This energy system was created and developed on a hierarchical basis with centralized long-term planning bodies. The centralized model has been the basis of the energy strategy for decades, while distributed energy resources (DER), including microgrids on renewables, are developing slowly and only in remote and isolated areas. A significant role for distributed generation has been significant only in the remote areas of the Far East, Siberia, and the Arctic, which are too expensive to connect to the unified national network. However, the incorporation of DER within the centralized system has begun, as is the case elsewhere in the world.

Decentralization of the power sector began when economies of scale in power generation ceased to be significant globally due to technological improvements. The catalyst for this change was the emergence of gas turbine and reciprocating gas engine technologies in the 1980s. The reciprocating gas engine global market showed steady growth (compound annual growth rate [CAGR] of 17%) through the late 2000s [ 26 ]. For example, in the USA, distributed generation has played a role in the electric power sector for several decades [ 27 ]. Historically, these DER have consisted of dispatchable resources; however, the recent increase in non-dispatchable PV capacity marks a change in this trend. The Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) forecast shows that by 2040, the decentralization ratio will exceed 15% in eight countries (as was seen in Germany in 2017) [ 28 ]. Global annual distributed generation capacity additions have already exceeded centralized ones, and non-generation types of DER have even more potential than distributed generation (in the USA in 2014, demand response and energy efficiency potential [37 GW] was higher than CHP [18 GW] and solar [8 GW]) [ 27 ]. Similar to other countries, integration of DER into the Russian electricity sector was noticeable in the 2000s, but over the past 17 years has been limited to distributed generation only. The development of this process in Russia is driven not by global climate agenda or energy independence concerns, but by economic considerations of the largest electricity consumers. Almost all Russian large industrial companies (including oil and gas industry leaders like Gazprom, Rosneft, Lukoil, Novatek, and Sakhalin Energy) develop their own distributed generation projects in order to obtain a more affordable power supply.

Micro-generation using renewables for households in Russia is still largely confined to enthusiasts. There are just a few cases in place in several regions, all driven almost completely by economic expediency factors.

Non-generation types of DER in Russia are in the very early phase of development. Demand response technologies began to emerge in 2016–2017, but only a small proportion of power consumption was affected (54 MW in the second price zone of the wholesale power market, or 0.1% of total capacity in this zone). Demand response in the retail electricity market is in the experimental stage.

However, the potential for DER in Russia is significant. According to a study by the Skolkovo Energy Center [ 29 ], this potential can easily cover over half of the generation capacity need (about 36 GW by 2035). The most promising type of DER in Russia is distributed co-generation (~17 GW). On-site self-generation units for electricity consumers are able to provide an additional ~13 GW, demand response up to 4 GW, energy-efficient technologies 1.5 GW, and rooftop PV systems 0.6 GW. Full use of a DER scenario shows the possibility of closing the entire gap by 2035.

In order to stimulate the maximum use of DER technologies, systemic architecture and policy changes are needed in the Russian power sector, balancing the interests of new players with the existing model. A consistent reasonable combination of centralized generation and DER seems the most effective approach. To implement such a combination, principles and market mechanisms must be developed for the integration of the centralized and decentralized parts and to ensure their reliable joint operation.

Digitalization as government priority

Digitalization of the energy sector as a whole, and of the power sector in particular, is part of a global trend, which means that rapidly developing digital technologies penetrate the economy. For the power sector, it creates new opportunities—after all, it is becoming increasingly difficult to manage power systems with a high ratio of intermittent renewables. According to the IEA, investments in digital technologies globally are higher than in gas-fired power generation [ 30 ].

Russian authorities regard the digital transformation of the energy sector as a key technological challenge (also keeping in mind the high dependence on imports for all high-tech equipment and the potential threat of sanctions, which could create serious risks for national energy security), which is why digitalization has become the main driver of Russia's energy transition. In 2018, Vladimir Putin signed a decree establishing a special “Digital Economy” state program, with energy infrastructure mentioned as a key component. The Energy Ministry has also developed its special “Digital Energy” project focused primarily on digitalization of regulation, coordination, and creation of the whole institutional framework for the wide-scale introduction of digital technologies in the energy sector. According to the “Digital Transformation Strategy” of the state-owned power grid company Rosseti, the improved reliability of the power supply to consumers and the increased availability of electric grid infrastructure are among the effects of digital transformation.

Systematic and sequential digital transformation reduces the time and facilitates the process of technological connection, reduces the cost of maintenance and repair, increases the efficiency of grid management, reduces the number and duration of outages, and increases the service life of equipment. This improvement is possible because of more effective accident prevention and quick response to incidents owing to accurate information about their localization, equipment maintenance, and optimization of equipment operation modes in normal and emergency modes, ensuring prompt restoration of the power supply, including selective technology. Significant budgets are allocated for research and development (R&D) and localization of equipment, and for the development of redesign plans for the existing electricity networks, but this process is still in a very early stage, and it is difficult to assess its real results.

Russia remains isolated from the international community and partnerships among countries in developing hydrogen technologies. First of all, as mentioned earlier, this is explained by the fact that the climate change agenda and decarbonization still play a minor role in Russian energy strategy, which significantly hinders the development of all low-carbon technologies (renewables, energy efficiency, electric transport, etc.). At the same time, Russia has abundant resources for producing hydrogen, and there is some R&D activity in this area (mostly, however, far from commercialization) and prospective domestic demand niches for hydrogen.

Conclusion: a new strategy is needed in order to adapt to the energy transition

Russia’s attitude towards the energy transition is quite controversial: trying to introduce in a traditional centralized manner some components of this trend. First, with regard to new technologies, the country is essentially refusing to accept the main driver of the trend—the decarbonization agenda. Existing strategic documents (primarily a draft version of the “Russian Energy Strategy Up to 2035”, which was submitted to the government by the Energy Ministry in 2015, but not approved until now [ 14 ]) do not take the energy transition into account. Nevertheless, at a certain point, the country will have to develop a long-term vision for both its domestic energy market development and its export strategy in order to adapt to the profound transformation of the global energy system.

Smil, V.: Energy and civilization: a history. MIT Press, US (2018)

Google Scholar

Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety: Energy concept for an environmentally sound, reliable and affordable energy supply. Organization for security and co-operation in Europe. https://www.osce.org/eea/101047 (2013). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Trüby, J., Schiffer, H.W.: A review of the German energy transition: taking stock, looking ahead, and drawing conclusions for the Middle East and North Africa. Energy transitions 2, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41825-018-0010-2 (2018). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Article Google Scholar

ERI RAS: Global and Russian energy outlook up to 2040. ERI RAS, AC RF. https://www.eriras.ru/files/forecast_2016.pdf (2016). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

BP: BP statistical review of world energy. 67th edition. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html (2018). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

International Energy Agency. Coal 2018: analysis and forecasts to 2023. OECD/IEA. https://www.iea.org/coal2018 (2018). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Trading Economics: Russia GDP growth rate. https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth (2018). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Presidential Decree of May 13, 2017 No. 208 “On the Strategy of Economic Security of the Russian Federation for the Period until 2030″ (Russian). https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/71572608/ (2017). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

World Bank Group: Modest growth ahead. 39 Russia economic report, May 2018. Open knowledge repository. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/29913/127254-WP-PUBLIC-ADD-SERIES-JunefinalRussiaEconomicReportENG.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (2018). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Mitrova T., Grushevenko E., Malov A. The future of Russian oil production: life under sanctions. SKOLKOVO Energy Centre. https://energy.skolkovo.ru/downloads/documents/SEneC/research04-en.pdf (2018). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Henderson J., Mitrova T. Natural gas pricing in Russia: between regulation and markets. (Russian). SKOLKOVO Energy Centre. https://energy.skolkovo.ru/downloads/documents/SEneC/research02.pdf (2017). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Ramstein, C., Goyal, R., Gray, S., Kallhauge, A.C., Lam, L., Klein, N., Wong, L., Quant, M., Nierop, S., Berg, T., Leuschner, P.: World Bank and Ecofys: State and trends of carbon pricing 2018. World Bank, Washington, DC (2018). https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1292-7

Staffell, I., Jansen, M., Chase, A., Cotton, E., Lewis, C.: Energy revolution: global outlook. Selby, Drax (2018)

Ministry of Energy of Russian Federation: Draft Energy Strategy Up to 2035 (Russian). https://minenergo.gov.ru/node/1920 (2017). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Summary of GHG Emissions for Russian Federation/UNFCCC. Energy Agency (IEA): electricity information. IEA/OECD Publications, Paris. https://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profiles/annexOne/RUS/RUS_ghg_profile.pdfInternational (2018). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Makarov, I. A., Chen H. Y., Paltsev S.: Finding itself in the post-Paris World: Russia in the new global energy landscape. MIT CEEPR working papers. CEEPR. MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, 2017. No. WP-2017-022. http://ceepr.mit.edu/publications/working-papers/675 (2017). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Makarov, I.A.: Russia’s participation in international environmental cooperation. J. Strateg. Anal. 40 (6), 536–546 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2016.1224062

Ministry of Energy of Russian Federation: State strategy “Energy Development” (Russian). https://minenergo.gov.ru/node/323 (2019). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Bashmakov I. Driving industrial energy efficiency in Russia. Moscow, March 2013. http://www.cenef.ru/file/Idustry-eng.pdf (2013). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

International Energy Agency (IEA): World Energy Outlook 2011. IEA/OECD Publications, Paris (2011)

Book Google Scholar

Bashmakov, I.: What happens to the energy intensity of Russia’s GDP? (Russian). Ecol. Bull. Russ. 7 , 8 (2018)

Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation: State report on the state of energy savings and energy efficiency in the Russian Federation in 2017 (Russian). Moscow (2018)

International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA): Renewable energy prospects for the Russian Federation (REmap working paper). IRENA. https://www.irena.org/publications/2017/Apr/Renewable-Energy-Prospects-for-the-Russian-Federation-REmap-working-paper (2017). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation: Presentation on the results of the fuel and energy complex functioning in 2018 and its targets for 2019 (Russian). Moscow (2019)

Power Technology: Is Russia finally ready to embrace renewable energy? https://www.power-technology.com/features/russia-renewable-energy/ (2018). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide. 30th power generation order survey. https://dieselgasturbine.com/market-surveys (2006). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Rhodium Group: What is it worth? The state of the art in valuing distributed energy resources. https://rhg.com/research/what-is-it-worth-the-state-of-the-art-in-valuing-distributed-energy-resources/ (2017). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Bloomberg New Energy Finance: New energy outlook. https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook (2017). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Khokhlov, A., Melnikov, Y., Veselov, F., Kholkin, D., Datsko, K.: Distributed energy resources in Russia: development potential. SKOLKOVO Energy Centre. https://energy.skolkovo.ru/downloads/documents/SEneC/Research/SKOLKOVO_EneC_DER_2018.10.09_Eng.pdf (2018). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

International Energy Agency (IEA): Status of power system transformation—advanced power plant flexibility. Executive summary. IEA/OECD Publications, Paris. https://webstore.iea.org/download/summary/1041 (2018). Accessed 22 Apr 2019

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Moscow School of Management SKOLKOVO, Energy Centre, Novaya Ul. 100, Skolkovo Village, Odintsovsky District, Moscow, 143025, Russia

Tatiana Mitrova & Yuriy Melnikov

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatiana Mitrova .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mitrova, T., Melnikov, Y. Energy transition in Russia. Energy Transit 3 , 73–80 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41825-019-00016-8

Download citation

Received : 29 April 2019

Accepted : 28 August 2019

Published : 11 September 2019

Issue Date : December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41825-019-00016-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Energy transition
Energy policy
Fossil fuels
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, solving the world’s hardest problems with mellody hobson: closing the racial wealth gap, weapons in space: a virtual book talk with dr. aaron bateman, u.s.-australia-japan trilateral cooperation on strategic stability in the taiwan strait report launch.

Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
Aerospace Security Project
Africa Program
Americas Program
Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
Asia Program
Australia Chair
Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
China Power Project
Chinese Business and Economics
Defending Democratic Institutions
Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
Defense 360
Defense Budget Analysis
Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
Economics Program
Emeritus Chair in Strategy
Energy Security and Climate Change Program
Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
Freeman Chair in China Studies
Futures Lab
Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
Global Food and Water Security Program
Global Health Policy Center
Hess Center for New Frontiers
Human Rights Initiative
Humanitarian Agenda
Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
International Security Program
Japan Chair
Kissinger Chair
Korea Chair
Langone Chair in American Leadership
Middle East Program
Missile Defense Project
Project on Critical Minerals Security
Project on Fragility and Mobility
Project on Nuclear Issues
Project on Prosperity and Development
Project on Trade and Technology
Renewing American Innovation
Scholl Chair in International Business
Smart Women, Smart Power
Southeast Asia Program
Stephenson Ocean Security Project
Strategic Technologies Program
Sustainable Development and Resilience Initiative
Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program
All Regions
Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
Middle East
Russia and Eurasia
American Innovation
Civic Education
Climate Change
Cybersecurity
Defense Budget and Acquisition
Defense and Security
Energy and Sustainability
Food Security
Gender and International Security
Geopolitics
Global Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Assistance
Intelligence
International Development
Maritime Issues and Oceans
Missile Defense
Nuclear Issues
Transnational Threats
Water Security

Environmental Activism in Russia: Strategies and Prospects

Photo: OLGA MALTSEVA/AFP/Getty Images

Commentary by Angelina Davydova

Published March 3, 2021

Despite growing pressure on civil society activists and opposition leaders, grassroots environmental activism is on the rise in Russia. How have these movements evolved and adapted? What forms do they take now? And what is the future of environmental activism in Russia?

The last few years have witnessed growing environmental awareness across Russia’s regions, both according to polls and the number of observed protest movements and campaigns. (A good mapping of such protests can be found on crowd-sourcing platform Activatica .) These campaigns aim to tackle regional, local, or hyper-local problems and address a range of concerns: locally polluting enterprises, new and potentially hazardous factories and waste incinerators, the expansion of coal mines, a lack of access to trustworthy data about environmental pollution, the destruction of green spaces in urban areas, illegal logging, and the water pollution.

A number of factors contribute to this growing environmental awareness and activism. For one, the international “green” agenda has brought environmental concerns to the forefront of domestic political, societal, and media discussions. Research increasingly draws a link between high income levels and environmental awareness (even as the increased consumption of high earners raises their carbon footprint ). Although Russians’ real disposable incomes have mostly declined since 2014, the country’s GDP per capita has nearly doubled since 2000. Russians now find that it has become “normal” to care about environmental issues, demand access to environmental data, and worry about potential health hazards from environmental pollution. Indeed, 35 percent of Russians are ready to take part in environmental protests, according to a survey conducted by a number of sociological centers in the fall of 2020, with particular concern over industrial water pollution, illegal logging, illegal or mismanaged waste landfills, and urban water pollution. Another study from the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VSIOM) published in August 2020 revealed one in four Russians has begun to think more about environmental issues during the pandemic due to overall increased attention to health. The Levada Center, an independent pollster, found that 84 percent of Russians are worried about environmental problems; of those, 25 percent expressed highest concern over air pollution, 15 percent over water pollution, and 11 percent over waste management.

This growth in environmental awareness in Russia has coincided with a growing concern that local natural resources—“our land” and “our forests”—are exploited or mismanaged by multinational or domestic companies, and that profits from these resources are whisked away to Moscow or foreign capitals to the detriment of local communities. In this sense, heightened environmental awareness intermingles with Russia’s traditional center-region cultural and political divide and growing regional inequalities .

The landscape for environmental activism in Russia is more fluid and decentralized than in the West—but it has grown. New environmental groups in Russia are informal and frequently do not register as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Rather, they spring up around a particular issue and often dissolve once it has been addressed, only occasionally evolving into a larger and more permanent association. Despite their informal structures, many of these new civil society groups have managed to attract impressive levels of public attention and support, aptly utilizing both traditional and new media and building up capacity and involvement structures through online tools. One example is the successful campaign around the Shies settlement in the Archangelsk region of northern Russia, where for months local activists have sustained an encampment to block the construction of a landfill for household waste from Moscow.

These grassroots movements and groups provoke a range of reactions from state authorities. Some are tolerated and even brought into the policy process (e.g., “officially” invited into advisory councils). Occasionally, these campaigns also lead to real change. Such was the case in Bashkiria, where recent protests over limestone mining in a hillside viewed by local residents as sacred led to the cancellation of the project .

More often, however, campaigns butt up against political realities, leading to the prosecution of activists and even physical threats and abuse toward to them by state institutions, often on behalf of a private company. A case in point would be persecution of activists from the Voronezh region for fighting against copper and nickel exploration plans on agricultural lands, even though these plans have been put on hold. A recent report by the Russian Socio-Ecological Union highlights 169 episodes of pressure on 450 eco-activists in 26 regions of Russia in 2020. One activist was killed, 15 were injured or had their property damaged, and 14 criminal and 264 administrative cases were initiated against eco-activists. “Most cases of pressure on eco-activists are connected with the extraction of natural resources, waste management, polluting industries and construction projects,” the report says.

Types of Activism

Environmental activism in Russia falls into several categories.

Protest groups

The first category tends to work mostly on short-lived campaigns directed against a local source of pollution (i.e., a factory or an incineration plant) or against plans to erect new infrastructure on an existing green space, particularly in urban areas. Participants in this category tend to be residents of the region or neighborhood who organize through social networks and then dissolve once their cause is addressed. Occasionally, these groups form networks or associations based on common interests and causes, such as the Green Coalition of St. Petersburg , which aims to unite all grassroots groups fighting against demolition of parks and green zones, or the Association of Eco-Groups of Moscow and Moscow Region

Grassroots environmental groups

The second type of group tends to focus on issues that are absent from the governmental agenda: recycling , sustainable or ethical consumption , urban greening , and more. An example here would be the movement Razdelny Sbor (“Separate Selection”), which created a system of recycling points across many Russian cities. These types of groups rarely engage in protest activities and tend to focus their energies and resources on lobbying and engaging the general public though traditional and social media.

Environmental watchdogs

The third genre of environmental activism in Russia focuses on public monitoring and oversight of environmental and urban policy at the federal, regional, and municipal level, including project implementation and public funds spending. Watchdogs might also provide alternate estimations of environmental data (especially when data is not available or reliable) or initiate campaigns for access to environmental data, demanding transparency and accountability. Examples here include grassroots initiatives to create alternative, civic-based monitoring of air pollution in Krasnoyarsk , Chelyabinsk , and Moscow .

Activists also use a variety of tactics to achieve their goals.

Social media and informational technology

Social media platforms, including VK, Facebook, WhatsApp, and increasingly Telegram, are the lifeblood of new environmental groups. They are used to report news and provide updates on activities and achievements, publish statistics, mobilize public support, and raise awareness over the campaign’s cause. A number of activists from environmental campaigns have also launched their own personal blogs, which act as self-run media sources offering personal takes on recent changes in legislation and synchronizing campaign updates and news. Anna Garkusha of Razdelny Sbor, for example, runs a popular blog on recycling and waste policy.

Another distinct feature of the new wave of environmental movements in Russia is the use of information technology and open-source data tools, including mapping, organized hackathons, and web platforms, apps, and other user-friendly interfaces that facilitate wider communication and greater involvement of the general public. Several environmental groups cooperate closely with experts or activists from the tech industry. An interesting example here is Teplitsa Sozialnykh Technologiy (“A Greenhouse for Social Technologies”), an NGO resource center that helps activist groups better use online technologies and digital tools and solutions in their work and campaigns.

Engagement with authorities

Although civil groups face growing pressure in Russia, there are plenty of examples of environmental NGOs and activists working through more formal channels to achieve their political aims. For example, Moscow’s annual Russian Civil Forum provides a space for representatives of established environmental NGOs and new environmental groups to try to coordinate with each other and align their positions on environmental policy issues. In addition, the Russian Social Ecological Union’s annual conference convenes representatives of Russian civil society groups (both registered and grassroots groups) working on energy efficiency and renewable energy issues to develop positions in support of or against international and Russian climate policy. These position points are later shared with Russian decisionmakers on climate change policy and with the international community at UN climate conferences. However, productive engagement with authorities is not always politically feasible—in particular when the object of protest concerns an investment project or a corruption scheme involving both local authorities and companies. Here, too, there are no set rules. Citizens may organize protest campaigns and attempt to attract the attention of regional or federal authorities via media and popular mobilization; go to the courts with the backing of professional lawyers, many of whom are also supported by NGOs such as Bellona or Greenpeace; enter into a dialogue with the local authorities via the civic chamber or similar structures; or combine these tactics to build pressure at multiple levels. In some cases, activists are persecuted by regional authorities and forced to leave the region (and even the country).

Regional authorities must walk a fine line between effectively managing environmental grievances and avoiding the heavy-handed persecution of activists or suppression of public opinion that could potentially damage their reputation. Indeed, a number of regional governors have lost their positions following large-scale environmental protests that they failed to tackle properly, at least in Moscow’s view. With this in mind, some governors are more willing to initiate dialogue with local activists just to avoid escalation.

Overall, the landscape for environmental activism in Russia is becoming more decentralized and less formal. A growing number of new groups and movements choose to remain unregistered entities—with no office, no full-time staff, and little or no budget—for a variety of political and societal reasons. First, repressive foreign agent legislation has raised the stakes for established NGOs who receive part of their financing from outside of Russia; increasingly, new environmental groups in Russia try to avoid any direct financing from abroad. Second, new groups try to preemptively avoid pressure from the authorities in the form of tax audits and health and fire code inspections that can lead to legal charges, fines, and even closure. Third, by skirting typical organizational or foundational structures, these groups can also claim to be closer to the ground and more connected to the immediate interests and concerns of local communities—working on local as opposed to global issues. More and more often, activism takes the form of crowdfunding campaigns or private donations only in an attempt to remain transparent to donors and accountable to constituencies.

Global movements

Even as activist structures have become more local and decentralized, youth climate activism in Russia has begun to gain steam over the past two years, in part due to the global “Fridays For Our Future” (FFF) and “Extinction Rebellion” movements. The first youth climate protest in Russia took place in March 2019, and FFF has existed in digital form throughout the pandemic, organizing online protests and forming policy positions.

Though part of a global movement, these youth groups have attempted to formulate a Russia-specific agenda and apply global climate rhetoric to local environmental campaigns. These groups combine the experience, expertise, and technologies of Russia’s environmental tradition—honed in fights against new coal and gas infrastructure and for accountability over oil spills and landfill mismanagement—and the language of the global youth, emphasizing unsustainable economic and social developments and calling for major policy reforms in the energy, waste, and transportation sectors. At times, however, these structural demands can sound too radical and unrealistic for some of Russia’s more established green groups.

Principles of Successful Activism

The past and current experiences of grassroots movements illustrate a framework for subsequent campaigns to follow. For an environmental activist movement to be successful in Russia, a number of factors must be in place:

The campaign must be truly local, with limited foreign support (which would be described and promoted as “meddling” and lead to accusations of “foreign agent” involvement that might ruin the reputation of a campaign or its leaders).
The cause must have widespread public support (including people eager and ready to invest their time and money into the cause).
The cause must be supported by the expert community. Support from Russian Greenpeace and WWF Russia, as well as other expert centers, environmental lawyers, registered NGOs, think tanks, and scientists, can help to raise the problem to the federal level.
There must be a professional media and social media campaign to build up a network of trusted supporters across the country.
The campaign needs passionate and courageous leaders who are willing to dedicate their time and energy for a significant amount of time.

The Future of Environmental Activism in Russia

The development of environmental and climate activism in Russia is gradually changing the political and societal landscape. “Green” topics are gaining importance within the overall political agenda, both at the federal and regional level. As public awareness of environmental issues grows in Russia, companies are beginning to pay more attention as well. So far, most of these movements are concentrated around the local environmental agenda, but youth are bringing a more international outlook to the focus and methods of Russian environmental activism. In many ways, this activism lays the groundwork for a new and more engaged civil society in Russia, one that resists easy categorization but appears in many forms across Russia’s diverse regions.

Angelina Davydova is a visiting fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

Angelina Davydova

Programs & projects.

Clean Energy

In final rock springs resource management plan, blm sticks with conservation priorities, renewable energy development, the controversial plan would also place new limits on the terrain open to coal mining and oil and gas drilling, mainly due to a lack of resources in the areas, irking many fossil fuel advocates in the state..

Share this article

Under the final Rock Springs Resource Management Plan, the wildlands surrounding Adobe Town will still be available for oil and gas drilling. Credit: Bob Wick/Bureau of Land Management

Tribe Sues Interior Department Over Approval of Arizona Lithium Project

Western States and Industry Groups Unite to Block BLM’s Conservation Priority Land Rule

Judge Orders Oil and Gas Leases in Wyoming to Proceed After Updated BLM Environmental Analysis

The Bureau of Land Management, on Aug. 22, released its final Resource Management Plan for its Rock Springs District in Southwest Wyoming, spurring blowback from the governor and the fossil fuel industry, and drawing mostly praise from conservation groups.

The plan, released after an unprecedentedly long formulation, will close more parcels of land to oil and gas drilling and coal mining in order to prevent irreparable damage to cultural sites, viewsheds, migration corridors and wildlife, among other considerations of natural and social values, and places a greater emphasis on preserving areas of environmental concern.

In a surprise, the agency made it slightly easier for renewable energy to be built on the nearly 3.6 million acres under its management in the area. Land allotments for most renewables decreased, but not as drastically as parcels dedicated to fossil fuels.

Environmental groups and some Wyomingites responded warmly to the plan.

Explore the latest news about what’s at stake for the climate during this election season.

“The BLM has hit the bullseye with this proposal,” said Mark Kot, a retired Sweetwater County public land planner, in a prepared statement released by a consortium of environmental groups. It “chooses low-conflict areas for renewable energy projects and transmission lines; and prohibits speculative leasing and drilling in areas where there’s very low oil and gas potential, like much of the Northern Red Desert and Big Sandy Foothills,” he said.

When the BLM announced its draft plan and preferred alternative in August 2023, it set off a firestorm in the Cowboy State. The agency selected its Alternative B, which “conserves the most land area for physical, biological, and cultural resources” while implementing the most restrictions on resource extraction, the BLM said. Members of Wyoming’s oil and gas industry called the bureau’s selected alternative a national disaster and a death knell to the state’s economy.

Fossil fuel organizations and business associations voiced their displeasure with the BLM’s plan in a statement released last Thursday. “Our industries and members are deeply concerned about the plan the federal BLM has released. It disregards many relevant and valuable comments that were made by Wyoming businesses and people. We appreciate that the BLM made some adjustments [but] this plan includes an enormous increase in the prohibition of development of BLM multiple-use lands compared to the status quo. This is not a good proposal for business in Wyoming or the people who live in southwestern Wyoming.”

Gov. Mark Gordon, who has championed Wyoming’s fossil fuel industry, even as he acknowledges the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change, said in a prepared statement that “the proposed Rock Springs RMP does not meet Wyoming’s expectations of durable, multiple use of public lands,” and took issue with the number of parcels newly off limits to development.

But these steps are exactly the ones conservationists in Wyoming are commending the BLM for taking. “BLM’s proposed plan is not only critical for sustaining the long-term health of sensitive fish and wildlife habitat in southwestern Wyoming, it also honors the wishes of the Greater Little Mountain Coalition and Governor Gordon’s Rock Springs task force,” said Josh Coursey, co-founder and president of the Muley Fanatic Foundation, in a prepared statement.

“It’s deeply satisfying, after a really robust public input process, to see the BLM pay personal attention to the public comments and make hard decisions,” said Julia Stuble, the Wyoming state director of the Wilderness Society. “They landed on a really reasonable plan. Undeveloped natural areas where people in the local community and people nationwide want to visit and recreate and experience—those are protected in the plan, and there is plenty of opportunity for all types of energy development to expand.”

Some conservationists wished the agency had gone further, designating more lands as wilderness areas. Lauren Marsh, BLM program manager for the Wyoming Wilderness Association, said in a prepared statement that her organization was disappointed the agency did not set up “important protections for the hoodoo-studded wildlands surrounding Adobe Town,” a colorful desert badland near Wyoming’s border with Colorado which will be available for oil and gas drilling under the final plan .

“We want public lands to be part of the climate solution.”

More than 70 percent of the 3.6 million acres in the Rock Springs area will still be available for fossil fuel expansion, but such development is not guaranteed. “For many of these minerals, deposits are unknown and current development potential is considered low,” the BLM wrote in its plan. The coal industry has “no outstanding or pending applications for federal coal leases or exploration licenses on lands within the Planning Area. The last leasing was completed in 2013 and recent coal production has been in decline,” and “the oil shale deposits in the Green River Basin of Wyoming are low grade.”

But renewables were a different story. “The Department of the Interior and the BLM continue to strengthen America’s energy independence by providing sites for environmentally sound development of renewable energy on public lands,” the agency wrote, apparently repurposing a common claim of the oil and gas industry that the U.S. is energy insecure. The BLM will permit both wind and solar energy development in certain areas, but the agency’s emphasis will be on wind as it has a higher commercial potential than solar in the area, the agency said.

“We want public lands to be part of the climate solution,” said Stuble, of the Wilderness Society. With the exception of an area in the foothills of the Wind River range, she said most of the other areas open to renewable and fossil fuel development under the final plan are “low conflict areas” with wildlife and recreationists. The difference, she said, is the unharvested renewable energy resource in the area, whereas most of the sites with high potential for oil and gas in the Rock Springs region have already been leased by the fossil fuel industry.

Even with a decrease in fossil fuel development and an increase in conservation, the oil, gas and coal extraction allowed by the agency’s final plan will still present a cost to the climate. As part of an executive order issued by the Biden administration, federal agencies are required to calculate the social costs of carbon, a figure meant to represent the amount of economic damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions from carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

Under its originally preferred option, Alternative B, the BLM projected an average of $16 billion in damages and losses from the emissions released by the extraction and burning of fossil from the area, as estimated by different modeling scenarios for the duration of the plan. Resource Management Plans typically last one to two decades. Though the BLM did not release a social cost of carbon calculations for its final plan, its average damage would likely be almost twice as high as what was calculated for Alternative B due to differences between fossil fuel development in the two alternatives.

The BLM has issued a 30-day public protest period, after which the agency will publish the final plan in the Federal Register. Gordon has already vowed to challenge parts of the plan.

About This Story

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.

That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.

Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.

Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?

Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.

David Sassoon Founder and Publisher

Vernon Loeb Executive Editor

Jake Bolster

Contributing writer.

Jake Bolster is a freelance multimedia journalist who covers climate and the environment across the United States.

Newsletters

We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web's top headlines deliver the full story, for free.

Inside Clean Energy
Today's Climate
Breaking News
I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy .

Explorarory wells have damaged the water flow at Ha’Kamwe’, a hot spring sacred to the Hualapai Nation in Wikieup, Arizona. Credit: Ash Ponders/Earthjustice

By Wyatt Myskow

A cowboy herds cows down a dirt road in the San Rafael Swell on BLM land near Green River, Utah, on April 14. Credit: George Frey/Getty Images

By Najifa Farhat

An oil drilling rig operates near Pinedale in Sublette County, Wyoming. Credit: William Campbell/Corbis via Getty Images

By Jake Bolster

US District Court Throws Out Federal Agency’s Assessment Allowing More Drilling for Fossil Fuels in the Gulf of Mexico

By aman azhar.

An aerial view of the idled Bluestone Coke facility in Birmingham, Ala. Credit: Lee Hedgepeth/Inside Climate News

Coal Baron a No-Show in Alabama Courtroom as Abandoned Plant Continues to Pollute Neighborhoods

By dennis pillion.

Farmworkers pick strawberries on a field in Oxnard, California. Growers applied more than 60 million pounds of the fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene on crops such as strawberries to kill nematodes and other soil-dwelling organisms in 2018, the most recent year data is available. Credit: Mel Melcon/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

EPA Thought Industry-Funded Scientists Could Support Its Conclusion That a Long-Regulated Pesticide Is Not a Cancer Risk

By liza gross, the us appetite for electricity grew massively in the first half of 2024, and solar power rose to the occasion.

By Dan Gearino

How a Technology Similar to Fracking Can Store Renewable Energy Underground Without Lithium Batteries

Want an ev with 600 miles of range it’s coming.

An aerial view of the MCE Solar One utility-scale solar farm on April 25 in Richmond, California. Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Keep Environmental Journalism Alive

ICN provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going.

We use cookies to ensure best experience for you

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalize content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audience is coming from. You can also read our privacy policy , We use cookies to ensure the best experience for you on our website.

The Middle East and Africa
Leaders Speak
Brand Solutions
The GIB Case: Possible solutions for harmonising India’s clean energy transition with biodiversity conservation

Sairam Thandra & Harikrishna K V ,
ETEnergyWorld
Updated On Aug 27, 2024 at 11:45 AM IST

By Sairam Thandra,Harikrishna K V ,
By Sairam Thandra & Harikrishna K V ,
Published On Aug 27, 2024 at 11:45 AM IST

All Comments

By commenting, you agree to the Prohibited Content Policy

Find this Comment Offensive?

Foul Language
Inciting hatred against a certain community
Out of Context / Spam

Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals

Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis., download etenergyworld app.

Get Realtime updates
Save your favourite articles

clean energy transition
biodiversity conservation
Great Indian Bustard
Supreme Court
power lines
undergrounding
renewable energy potential

An Innovative Approach of Oltc Switching Cycle Reduction by Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm in Optimally Renewable Integrated Energy System

16 Pages Posted: 26 Aug 2024

Deepak Porwal

Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT), Jaipur - Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur

MANOJ FOZDAR

Rajive tiwari, akash kumar shukla.

affiliation not provided to SSRN

The highly intermittent and unpredictable nature of renewables make them unsuitable for a stable grid connected operation. The utilities keep on finding solutions for accommodating these non-deterministic and largely probabilistic renewable energy sources. Voltage regulation in a renewable integrated system becomes of paramount importance to facilitate the voltage stability. This in result increases the operating time of voltage regulating devices like On-Load Tap Changers and other similar devices causing the faster degradation of these devices. This paper mainly focuses on optimally managing the renewable energy sources penetration with utilizing voltage regulation devices like OLTC in their minimum operation schedule. So, this paper primarily deals in minimizing the OLTC switching cycle’s problem. Initially it accommodates the optimal size and site of renewable based energy sources such as Solar PV and wind plant system using Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm. The proposed methodology is tested on IEEE-39 and IEEE-57 bus system. The results are validated with reduced power losses and switching cycle of OLTC while maintaining the voltage profile of the system for a period of 24 hour. The results obtained affirm Renewable energy resources (RERs) optimal placement and capacity with simultaneous improvement in voltage profile and OLTC switching cycle’s reduction.

Keywords: Distributed generators, pv, Wind System, OLTC, STATCOM, optimal planning

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT), Jaipur - Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur ( email )

JLN Marg Jaipur, 302017 India

Akash Kumar Shukla (Contact Author)

Affiliation not provided to ssrn ( email ).

No Address Available

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, renewable energy ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Energy Engineering eJournal

Bioenergy & other renewable energy ejournal, solar energy ejournal, wind & hydropower ejournal.

Thursday, August 29, 2024

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #609

The week that was: 2024 08-24 (august 24, 2024) brought to you by sepp ( www.sepp.org ) the science and environmental policy project.

Quote of the Week: “Those who can make you believe absurdities; can make you commit atrocities.” — Voltaire [H/t Richard Lindzen]

Number of the Week: Half-life less than 4.2 years

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Scope: Discussed below is Richard Lindzen’s view how we arrived at the modern absurdity of considering carbon dioxide a pollutant and a danger to life. Tom Gallagher continues his discussion on Earth’s energy flows and what climate models miss, particularly the importance of carbonic acid for most life on Earth. Briefly discussed is the fact that the temperature trends reported by UAH, Huntsville, are calculated, not measured.

*********************

A Modern Absurdity: The demonization of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, is amazing. By far, water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. Without the greenhouse effect, with the same albedo, land masses on Earth would become too cold at night to support the growth of plants, and Earth would be as barren as the Moon or Mars. Yet the greenhouse effect is demonized by the UN and its collaborators. Their focus is on carbon dioxide which accounts for less than 25% of the greenhouse effect. Other gases have a minimal effect, except ozone. But ozone primarily occurs in the stratosphere, where it is created by solar radiation hitting oxygen molecules. That causes stratospheric temperature to rise above the tropopause but does not impact Earth’s surface temperature.

To make the current craze of demonizing carbon dioxide even more absurd is that carbon dioxide is essential for photosynthesis, the mechanism by which green plants grow, and become the food source of all complex life on Earth. Without photosynthesis, life on Earth would be limited to chemo-synthesizing bacteria – hardly a food source for human life. Yet, the popular political belief in western Europe, North America and the anglicized world is that carbon dioxide, essential for photosynthesis, is a pollutant that will kill life on Earth.

Atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen gave a blunt assessment of this absurd belief in speech to the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), Brussels. Formed in Hungary, MCC is a leading talent promotion institution in East Central Europe. CLINTEL provided a video and a transcript of the address. In his address “Hopefully, we will awaken from this nightmare before it is too late,” Lindzen began with [Boldface added]:

“In modern history there are several examples of political movements claiming a scientific basis. From immigration restriction and eugenics (in the US after WWI) to antisemitism and race ideology (in Hitler’s Germany) and communism and Lysenkoism (under Stalin). Each of these claimed a scientific consensus that allowed highly educated citizens, who were nonetheless ignorant of science, to have the anxieties associated with their ignorance alleviated. Since all scientists supposedly agreed, there was no need for them to understand the science. Indeed, ‘the science’ i s the opposite of science itself. Science is a mode of inquiry rather than a source of authority. However, the success that science achieves has earned it a measure of authority in the public’s mind, and this is what politicians frequently envy and attempt to appropriate.

The exploitation of climate fits into the preceding pattern, and as with all its predecessors, science is, in fact, irrelevant. At best, it is a distraction which led many of us to focus on the numerous misrepresentations of science in what was purely a political movement.

The following focuses on the situation in the United States, though a similar dynamic occurred throughout the developed world, with meetings at the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation’s Bellagio Center and at Villach in the 1980’s playing an important role. Most of this talk will concern the origin of the obsession with decarbonization in the US. I will return briefly to the matter of the consensus at the end of this talk.

I would suggest that the obsession with decarbonization (i.e., Net Zero) had its roots in the reaction to the amazing post WW2 period when ordinary workers were able to own a house and a car. I was a student in the 50’s and early 60’s. The mockery of the poor taste and materialism of these so-called ordinary people was endemic. With the Vietnam War, things got amplified as the working class got drafted while students sought draft deferments. Students, during this period, were still a relative elite; the massive expansion of higher education was only beginning. Students justified their behavior by insisting that the Vietnam War was illegitimate while ignoring the obvious fact that Vietnamese people were fleeing south rather than north. It was fashionable to regard the US as evil and deserving of overthrow. Opposition often turned to violence with groups like the Weather Underground and SDS (Students for a Democratic Society). In 1968, I was teaching at the University of Chicago. We were spending the summer in Colorado, and we had a student taking care of our apartment. When we returned, we found a police car monitoring our apartment. The house-sitter had apparently turned our apartment into a crash pad for the SDS during the Democrat Party Convention. Our apartment was littered with their literature which included instructions for poisoning Chicago’s water supply. This period seemed to end with Nixon’s election, but we now know that this was just the beginning of the long march through the institutions: a march being conducted by avowed revolutionaries’ intent on destroying Western society. For the new revolutionaries, however, the enemy was not the capitalists, but, rather, the working middle class. The capitalists, they realized, could easily be bought off.

Currently, there is great emphasis on the march through the educational institutions: first the schools of education and then higher education in the humanities and the social sciences and now STEM. What is usually ignored is that the first institutions to be captured were professional societies. My wife attended a meeting of the Modern Language Association in the late 60’s, and it was already fully ‘woke.’

While there is currently a focus on the capture of education, DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, a movement emphasizing racial differences and encouraging conflict) was not the only goal of the march through the institutions. I think it would be a mistake to ignore the traditional focus of revolutionary movements on the means of production. The vehicle for this was the capture of the environmental movement. Prior to 1970, the focus of this movement was on things like whales, endangered species, landscape, clean air and water, and population. However, with the first Earth Day in April of 1970, the focus turned to the energy sector which, after all, is fundamental to all production, and relatedly, involves trillions of dollars.

As we will see, this last item was fundamental. This new focus was accompanied by the creation of new environmental organizations like Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council. It was also accompanied by new governmental organizations like the EPA and the Department of Transportation. Once again, professional societies were easy pickings: the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and even the honorary societies like the National Academy of Science, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, etc. The capture of the Royal Society in the UK was an obvious European example. There was a bit of floundering to begin with. The movement initially attempted to focus on global cooling due to the reflection of sunlight by sulfate aerosols emitted by coal fired generators. Afterall, there seemed to have been global cooling between the 1930’s and the 1970’s.

However, the cooling ended in the 1970’s. There was an additional effort to tie the sulfates to acid rain which was allegedly killing forests. This also turned out to be a dud. In the 70’s, attention turned to CO2 and its contribution to warming via the greenhouse effect. The attraction of controlling CO2 to political control freaks was obvious. It was the inevitable product of all burning of carbon-based fuels. It was also the product of breathing. However, there was a problem: CO2 was a minor greenhouse gas compared to the naturally produced water vapor. Doubling CO2 would only lead to warming of less than 1 degree C. A paper in the early 70’s by Manabe and Wetherald came to the rescue. Using a highly unrealistic one-dimensional model of the atmosphere, they found that assuming (without any basis) that relative humidity remained constant as the atmosphere warmed, would provide a positive feedback that would amplify the impact of CO2 by a factor of 2. This violated Le Chatelier’s Principle that held that natural systems tended to oppose change, but to be fair, the principle was not something that had been rigorously proven. Positive feedbacks now became the stock in trade of all climate models which now were producing responses to doubling CO2 of 3 degrees C and even 4 degrees C rather than a paltry 1 degree C or less.

The enthusiasm of politicians became boundless. Virtue signaling elites promised to achieve net zero emissions within a decade or 2 or 3 with no idea of how to achieve this without destroying their society (and, with offshore wind, killing marine mammals). Ordinary people, confronted with impossible demands on their own well-being, have not found warming of a few degrees to be very impressive since the warming projected was what everyone successfully negotiates every day. By contrast, most educated elites learned how to rationalize anything in order to please their professors – a skill that leaves them particularly vulnerable to propaganda. Few ordinary people, by contrast, contemplate retiring to the arctic rather than Florida. Excited politicians, confronted by this resistance, have frantically changed their story. Rather than emphasizing miniscule changes in their temperature metric (which, itself, is a false measure of climate), they now point to weather extremes which occur almost daily some place on earth, as proof not only of climate change but of climate change due to increasing CO2 (and now also to the even more negligible contributors to the greenhouse effect like methane and nitrous oxide) even though such extremes show no significant correlation with the emissions. From the political point of view, extremes provide convenient visuals that have more emotional impact than small temperature changes. The desperation of political figures often goes beyond this to claiming that climate change is an existential threat (associated with alleged ‘tipping points’) even though the official documents (for example, the Working Group 1 reports of the IPCC) produced to support climate concerns never come close to claiming this, and where there is no theoretical or observational basis for tipping points.”

Lindzen discusses the that Montreal Protocol [not verified by the US Senate] which banned Freon, for ozone depletion, constituted a dry run for the current absurdities. He concludes with:

“That the claim of consensus was always propagandistic should be obvious, but the claim of consensus has its own interesting aspects. When global warming was first exposed to the American public in a Senate hearing in 1988, Newsweek Magazine had a cover showing the Earth on fire with the subtitle ‘All scientists agree.’ This was at a time when there were only a handful of institutions dealing with climate and even these institutions were more concerned with understanding the present climate rather than the impact of CO2 on climate. Nonetheless, a few politicians (most notably Al Gore) were already making this their signature issue. And, when the Clinton-Gore administration won the election in 1992, there began a rapid increase by a factor of about 15 in funding related to climate. This, indeed, created a major increase in individuals claiming to work on climate, and who understood that the support demanded agreement with the alleged danger of CO2. Whenever, there was an announcement of something that needed to be found (i.e., the elimination of the medieval warm period, the attribution of change to CO2, etc.), there were, inevitably, so-called scientists who would claim to have found what was asked for (Ben Santer for attribution and Michael Mann for the elimination of the medieval warm period) and received remarkable rewards and recognition despite the absurd arguments. This did produce a consensus of sorts. It was not a consensus that we were facing an existential threat, but rather, as noted by Steven Koonin, that the projected increase in GDP by the end of the 21st century would be decreased from about 200% to 197% and even this prediction is an exaggeration – especially since it ignores the undeniable benefits of CO2.

So here we are, confronted with policies that destroy western economies, impoverish the working middle class, condemn billions of the world’s poorest to continued poverty and increased starvation, leave our children despairing over the alleged absence of a future, and will enrich the enemies of the West who are enjoying the spectacle of our suicide march, a march that the energy sector cowardly accepts, being too lazy to exert the modest effort needed to check what is being claimed. As Voltaire once noted, ‘Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.’ Hopefully, we will awaken from this nightmare before it is too late.”

See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

****************

Rethinking Global Warming: Last week, TWTW began discussing the very informative lecture by geoscientist Tom Gallagher covering the Holocene, the past 11,700 years. This week TWTW will continue with the discussion emphasizing major problems with Global Climate Models.

Earth’s Real Internal climate driver are the oceans, at all depth levels. Most significant is the ENSO in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Tree growth data nearby show oscillations since about 900 AD. Interestingly the oscillations have declined since the end of the Little Ice Age. The pulses are in 2 to 7 years cycles and they significantly affect precipitation.

The models trying to predict ENSO cycles are scattered widely. Ocean cycles need to be researched carefully; they contain far more heat balance flow than the atmosphere. North of the ENSO we have the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, that is longer than ENSO cycles.

The European weather systems are controlled by the North Atlantic Oscillation Current. Data shows it varies from warmer periods to colder periods since 1864 (NCAR)

The atmosphere is a “Leaky Radiating Cap”

“Complex Layered Composition Gases and Water, Ozone and Plasmas
Preserved by Magnetosphere Layer / by the Magnetic field of Earth
Lower Troposphere Dominated by Water Vapor/Ocean Energy
Water Vapor is 10,000 to 40,000 PM, Lighter than Air (largely N2 and O2)/ Buoyant/ Storing energy in Phase Changes
Thermal Inversion above Tropopause/Stratosphere//Ozone Cap
Low thermal capacity/ Radiation energy loss to space
CO2 Present in lower parts as Carbonic Acid, not pure CO2

The thermal tropopause is very low in the polar regions rising slowly from about 60 degree in latitude at an altitude of about 8 km to about 12 km at 30 degrees latitude then rising quickly to the about 16 to 18 km in the tropical regions. (Roughly the height of cloud tops) The jet streams separate the tropical world from the temperate/polar world. The jet streams can go 200 to 400 km/hr., but are usually between 130 to 225 km/hr.”

[The data comes from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)]

Gallagher then discusses a brief history of Global Warming Theories, which still need a lot of development, they are only theories. He suggests the earliest ones came in 1823. Starting in 1859 John Tyndall began his experiments, which Arrhenius used in 1896 hoping carbonic acid would prevent Earth from Ice Ages. Gallagher does not mention the 1906 retraction by Arrhenius.

Gallagher states that only with the development of photosynthesis did an understanding develop on how plants break down carbonic acid to Carbonic Anhydrase (a family of enzymes that catalyze the interconversion between carbon dioxide and water and the dissociated ions of carbonic acid. The active side of most carbonic anhydrases contain a zinc ion.)

The dynamics of carbonic acid in the lower atmosphere need a closer look. [Performed by van Wijngaarden and Happer but not stating carbonic acid]

The global climate models have not done well when compared with balloon and satellite datasets. Gallagher asks:

“Why do we use models that fail? – The error limits are not stated. Usually, the concentration is on the atmosphere, the roles of the oceans and clouds are ignored.

Global Climate Models have significant error ranges that are not mentioned by their adherents. The Surface Imbalance is 0.6 +/- 17 W/M2 – an absurd error – the error range is 28 times the estimated value. This is a problem of using models in a dynamic system, the resolutions of the answers are so small that they are overwhelmed by the error range of the assumptions.

The very large variations in the oceans and in clouds are lost in the global climate models.

Gallagher uses the calculations by the American Chemical Society (2020) to state that the black body radiation of the Sun is 252,000 times greater than that of Earth. Solar power is many times that of Earthglow. The differences of the two scales must be noted but frequently ignored.

Gallagher states that the energy level of light diminishes logarithmically with increasing wavelength. Carbon dioxide is important at a wavelength of Earthglow at a comparatively high energy level with little interference from water vapor, but methane and Nitrous oxide are largely interfered with by water vapor.

The energy band for carbon dioxide is partially blocked and redirected by water vapor. This is a problem from using the data from satellites, they cannot view that which is important.

NASA and the European Space Agency use just a very small frequency band (with a wavelength between 1.5 and 2 microns) for CO2 blocking and ignore the much larger bands where water vapor is dominant. To understand the influence of CO2 on the interference of infrared energy, all the frequency bands (wavelengths) must be used. Where CO2 is dominant, water vapor partially blocks its influence. Geographic areas where water vapor is largely absent (deserts and polar regions) cool rapidly at night because CO2 does not store or retain energy over the nighttime. Water vapor can.

The following slides sum things up: [Boldface is in colors in the original]

“Outgoing Heat (I.R. (infrared radiation)) Long wavelength Radiation Window and Water Vapor vs CO2:

Water Vapor Acts, over a broad spectrum of Radiation. It blocks, controls and redistributes Radiation.
Water Vapor Quantity increases logarithmically, directly along with Temperature. Regulating Temp.
Water Vapor , Through Latent Heat, Stores and Moves Atmospheric Energy and all other gases.
The Daily and Seasonal Lag of peak temperatures are excellent examples of the Water Energy Storage on Earth. Seasonally, in NH [Northern Hemisphere] June is the longest, but August the warmest. Daily noon is not the hottest, 2PM is.
Water is the dominant / and only condensable Gas in Earth’s Atmosphere
CO2 Acts: through Radiation at the speed of light. CO2 does not store energy; it vibrates it away.
CO2 acts over confined wavelength packets, mostly at 15 microns, but is blocked by water vapor.
CO2’s abundance in not proportion to temperature.
CO2 can not Store Heat, only radiate at away to space above the tropopause or to Water Vapor below this level
CO2 is not a condensable Gas in Earth’s atmosphere. As Carbonic Acid, CO2 is not properly understood.”

Another Slide:

“The Chemistry, Biology and Physics of CO2

CO2 is a heavy Gas [How does it get into the upper atmosphere?]
Solubility of CO2 in H2O [Liquid] is high. Water vapor is a Light Gas
Rain pH/ HCO3- [minus an electron]
Plant origin [and] adaptation Carbonic Anhydrase (CA)
Plant takes HCO3- and H+ with CA to Yield H2O and CO2
[Need to] Analyze the thermal contribution of Bicarbonate / HCO3- / CO2”

“ CO2’s ‘polar molecules’ become more soluble in water as the temperature falls. As water vapor ascends, the CO2/Carbonic Acid is taken up in humid air and rises with it as Carbonic Acid [H2CO3 [HCO3-]]

It is this weak Carbonic Acid diluted by Water Vapor that is seen in rain, which has a lowered pH.

Water Vapor (H2O) is the Lightest Atmospheric Gas (18) [Atomic Weight of 18]

Oxygen O2 is (32), Nitrogen N2 is (28), Pure CO2 Gas is very heavy (44). As a pure gas CO2 can not float but accumulates in lows. Only by bonding with Light Warter Vapor / Carbonic Acid, can it be transported to Plants and used.”

The solubility of CO2 in water rises as the temperature of the water falls.”

The Biology [of the System]: CO2 Bi-Carbonate/Carbonic Acid

Plants take up CO2, not as a pure gas but with Water Vapor, as Bicarbonate/Carbonic Acid in the lower Troposphere. Rainwater / Cloud moisture reflects the pH of this Carbonic Acid. Water Vapor, Evaporates at pH 7 and moves to pH 5.6, before falling as precipitation.

A unique and Ancient Enzyme/Catalyst (Carbonic Anhydrase) in the plant allows the CO2 and Water to be separated and used by the plant to conduct Photosynthesis.

The Basic Plant / Carbonic Acid Biology has been forgotten in the analysis of current Green-House Gas Theory. This oversight is a fundamental and serious error which models do not consider.

Carbonic Anhydrase is a Rapid acting and high-volume catalyst: it converts H2CO3 to H2O and CO2.

Zinc is the central element in the structure of the enzyme. There are animals and bacteria that use a slightly different version of this enzyme. For example, human lungs use a similar enzyme to balance the pH in blood and the removal of CO2 from blood.

Green plants use the enzyme in their stoma. Under higher altitude and colder conditions carbonic acid cannot be easily delivered to plants, defining tree lines for latitude and elevations of mountains. Tree ring growth (reduced growth) show this reduction in the winter. This is based on reduction of delivery of carbonic acid. Nature would not have developed this system if plants could use CO2 directly. The whole process of CO2 induced global warming theory needs to be rethought. [Boldface added]

TWTW will continue with this informative lecture next week. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy – Radiation Transfer and Challenging the Orthodoxy: Paleoclimatology Part 2

Calculations, Not Measurements: John Robson discovered that the atmospheric temperature trend data by University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH), are based on calculations not measurements. TWTW has long recognized this and has considered the data as showing temperature trends, not actual temperatures. The important issues are consistency of observations and adjustments for orbital drift plus any malfunctions in instrument readings. These adjustments are stated in “Climate Data Record (CDR) Program: Climate Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (C-ATBD); Mean Layer Temperature – UAH” published by NOAA.

Microwave sending units detect some exceedingly weak (per molecule) but detectable (because of the very high molecular density) spectral lines in oxygen molecules, and the intensity is temperature dependent. How they do this is not clear. While this may not be perfect in any absolute sense, the temperature difference between now and at some specified time can tell the trend.

No doubt, this document is carefully scrutinized by NOAA, because NOAA’s policy is contrary to what the UAH data is revealing – there is no alarming increase in temperature trends as atmospheric CO2 is increasing. See links under Measurement Issues – Atmosphere.

Number of the Week: Half-life less than 4.2 years. Gordon Hughes is a senior fellow at the National Center for Energy Analytics and Professional Fellow of economics at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. He has studied wind power in several countries. As the turbines get larger, the time of first failure becomes shorter. This applies to both onshore and offshore turbines. Further with salt spray, offshore turbines do not last as long as onshore turbines. Yet, the political trend is building larger offshore turbines in deeper water, making repairs more difficult. Based on data from Denmark, which keeps good records, a graph compiled by Hughes shows that the first-time failure rate (half-life) of large offshore turbines is less than 4.2 years. See links under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind and Article # 1.

NEWS YOU CAN USE:

Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

Scientists: 100% Of 2000-2023 Warming Explained By Solar Forcing…Human Climate Forcing ‘Does Not Exist In Reality’

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Aug 23, 2024

Scientists: 100% Of 2000-2023 Warming Explained By Solar Forcing…Human Climate Forcing ‘Does Not Exist In Reality’

Link to paper: Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations

By Ned Nikolov and Karl F. Zeller, Geomatics, Aug 20, 2024

Nikolov is with the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Zeller is a retired research meteorologist with the USDA Forest Service

“Our analysis revealed that the observed decrease of planetary albedo along with reported variations of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) explain 100% of the global warming trend and 83% of the GSAT interannual variability as documented by six satellite- and ground-based monitoring systems over the past 24 years.”

[SEPP Comment: Using a “follow the energy” approach to Earth’s warming. GSAT is Earth’s Global Surface Air Temperature (GSAT)]

CARDS: Using AI to Manipulate the Global Conversation on Climate Change

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Aug 18, 2024

Link to paper: Hierarchical machine learning models can identify stimuli of climate change misinformation on social media

By Cristian Rojas, et al., Nature, Communications, Earth & Environment, Aug 16, 2024

The abstract begins: Misinformation about climate change poses a substantial threat to societal well-being, prompting the urgent need for effective mitigation strategies. However, the rapid proliferation of online misinformation on social media platforms outpaces the ability of fact-checkers to debunk false claims.

[SEPP Comment: Say climate misinformers of climate information such as John Cook.]

‘Think before you post’: Britain’s slide into censorship

This authoritarian mess has been decades in the making.

By Tom Slater, Spiked, Aug 9, 2024

Of course, misinformation exists. The question is, who do you want to act as your Ministry of Truth? Big Tech? The state? Neither has a particularly encouraging track record.

One-Two Punch

The UK is diving off the energy cliff. Lamenting it might soon be illegal.

By Doomberg, Aug 22, 2024

In a piece we wrote in March titled “Climate Newspeak,” we chronicled how the self-appointed internet watchdog Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) was agitating to include opposition to wind and solar projects as “New Denial,” which they helpfully defined as “rhetoric seeking to undermine confidence in solutions to climate change.” At the time, the CCDH—led by founder and CEO Imran Ahmed, who was previously a political strategist for the Labour Party—was demanding censorship of a wide range of popular YouTube channels:

Illogically Facts —“Fact-Checking” by Innuendo

By Kip Hansen, WUWT, Aug 23, 2024

Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013

Click to access CCR-II-Full.pdf

Summary : https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-biological-impacts/

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-fossil-fuels/

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008

http://www.sepp.org/publications/nipcc_final.pdf

Challenging the Orthodoxy – Radiation Transfer

The Role of Greenhouse Gases in Energy Transfer in the Earth’s Atmosphere

By W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Preprint, Mar 3, 2023

Click to access The-Role-of-Greenhouse-Gases-in-Energy-Transfer-in-the-Earths-Atmosphere.pdf

Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases

By W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Preprint, December 22, 202o

Challenging the Orthodoxy

“Hopefully, we will awaken from this nightmare before it is too late.”

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”

By Richard Lindzen, CLINTEL, Accessed Aug 22, 2024

Lessons from Paleoclimatology: Conveniently Ignored By the IPCC

By Tom Gallagher, Irish Climate Science Forum and CLINTEL, April 20, 2022 [H/t Jim O’Brien]

Slides: http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/ICSF%20Paleo%20Talk.pdf

Paleoclimatology Part 1 https://youtu.be/K6tWEjkEiZU

Paleoclimatology Part 2 https://youtu.be/iZSYSWPYEbU

Paleoclimatology Part 3 https://youtu.be/YMHKt9ylPpQ

Link to paper: An astronomically dated record of Earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years

By Thomas Westerhold, et al. (over 20 co-authors), AAAS Science, Sep 11, 2020 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba6853

The Quest for Climate’s “Golden Fleece”

By Arvid Pasto, WUWT, Aug 28, 2024

As Carbon Dioxide Increases It Has Less Warming Effect

[SEPP Comment: Illustrates calculations from the MODTRAN Database which shows most of the warming from carbon dioxide occurs in the first 20 million parts per million in volume. Then the author gives other physical evidence showing that CO2 is not the driver of climate change as claimed by the IPCC and its collaborators.]

The Energy Transition Ain’t Happening: “Clean Fuels”

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Aug 19, 2024

The [Wall Street] Journal’s label of “clean fuels” is used to cover two different categories, one being biofuels, and the other being so-called “green hydrogen” (the stuff produced by electrolysis of water using electricity produced by wind or sun).

Defending the Orthodoxy

Sea Level Rise In Samoa Due To 2009 Volcano, Not Climate Change

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 23, 2024

Sea Level Rise In Samoa Due To 2009 Volcano, Not Climate Change

More lies from the UN Liar-in Chief:

[SEPP Comment: Nothing like using local sea level rise to claim global panic.]

Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science

How to Force Capitalism to Stop Climate Change

Central banks should stop pretending to be neutral about saving the planet.

By Jason Hickel and Charles Stevenson, Foreign Policy, Aug 16, 2024 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]

[SEPP Comment: Use force! Will government use of force stop Geothermal activity, Stop plate tectonics, Unify the Milankovitch cycles, Stop sunspots and Cosmic rays?]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Our Rising ‘Climate Costs’: Are They Really Proof of Climate Change Causing More Devastating Extreme Weather Events?

Our Rising ‘Climate Costs’: Are They Really Proof of Climate Change Causing More Devastating Extreme Weather Events?

Link to: Our Rising ‘Climate Costs’: Are They Really Proof of Climate Change Causing More Devastating Extreme Weather Events?

Dr. Jessica Weinkle argues that a practical approach rather than emotional media coverage is needed to make necessary conclusions about extreme weather and other climate events.

By Hannes Sary, Freedom Research, Aug 7, 2024

Climate Meltdown

By Ron Clutz, Science Matters, Aug 22, 2024

The commentary includes a 16-minute video, with interviews conducted by Alex Newman.

Gold medal in hypocrisy

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Aug 21, 2024

Link to: Raymond J. de Souza: Olympic athletes condemned to hot rooms, climate priests dine in luxury

The most fashionable religion of the Olympic elites is climate change

By Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post, Can, Aug 4, 2024

He quoted a Euro News story about how the British team flew out a chef to help them ( and when the British are complaining about the food you know there’s an issue ) that contained this classic passage: [Boldface added]

Dear Elon, 1,000ppm of carbon dioxide is safe, we breathe it every day

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 16, 2024

Energy & Environmental Review: August 19, 2024

By John Droz, Jr. Master Resource, Aug 19, 2024

After Paris!

It isn’t easy going green

Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide

Percent photosynthesis (net CO2 exchange rate) increases for apple following 300, 600 and 900 ppm increases in the air’s CO2 concentration

From the CO2Science archive:

Problems in the Orthodoxy

Newly Industrialized Economies Are Wiping Out CO2 Emissions Reductions

By Gary J. DiElsi, Real Clear Energy, August 19, 2024

[SEPP Comment: Apparently the spelling of the author’s last name is correct.]

Climate Claim: The UN “… need to resist the assertion that mining is always beneficial …”

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Aug 21, 2024

Climate Claim: The UN “… need to resist the assertion that mining is always beneficial …”

How Governments Impact the Global Mineral Supply

By Gregory Wischer & Lyle Trytten, Real Clear Energy, August 19, 2024

India Accentuates Coal Reliance in its New Economic Policy Brief

By Vijay Jayaraj, CO2, Coalition, Aug 20, 2024

Science, Policy, and Evidence

Climate Policies Fail in Fact and in Theory

By Ron Clutz, Science Matters, Aug 23, 2024

Climate Policies Fail in Fact and in Theory

Link to: Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions: Global evidence from two decades

By Annika Stechemesser, et al., AAAS Science, Aug 23, 2024

Link to: Ross McKitrick: Economists’ letter misses the point about the carbon tax revolt

Yes, the carbon tax works great in a ‘first-best’ world where it’s the only carbon policy. In the real world, carbon policies are piled high

By Ross McKitrick, Financial Post (Can) Apr 2, 2024

Clutz: Postscript: All the Pain for No Gain is Unnecessary

[SEPP Comment: Commentary on the AAAS Science paper.]

Models v. Observations

New AI-powered tool could help predict heat waves, link them to climate change

By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, Aug 21, 2024

Following the training, which relied on climate simulations from 1850 to 2100, the authors shifted focus to real-world heat waves: predicting how hot those events would have been under the same weather conditions but different levels of warming. They also factored in how climate change has influenced the frequency and severity of historical weather events.

[SEPP Comment: Train the model with worthless “global” data? The link to the paper did not work, unable to find it.]

Measurement Issues — Atmosphere

And you know that how exactly?

Link to report: Climate Data Record (CDR) Program: Climate Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (C-ATBD): Mean Layer Temperature – UAH

By John Christy, UAH, Apr 13, 20217

Click to access AlgorithmDescription_01B-10.pdf

Changing Weather

Hurricane Season on the Atlantic Coast of the United States

By Kip Hansen, WUWT, Aug 21, 2024

Edward Lorenz and Dave Fultz’s dishpan experiments showed quite clearly that these cyclonic storms are chaotic in origin and nature.

Less Extreme Pacific Weather … Number Of Typhoons Trending Downward Over 70 Years!

By P Gosselin, Charts by Kirye, No Tricks Zone, Aug 17, 2024

Less Extreme Pacific Weather … Number Of Typhoons Trending Downward Over 70 Years!

GFS Expects Global Temperature To Drop To Lowest Level Of The Year

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Aug 18, 2024

From Data.Gov The Global Forecast System (GFS) is a weather forecast model produced by the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). Dozens of atmospheric and land-soil variables are available through this dataset, from temperatures, winds, and precipitation to soil moisture and atmospheric ozone concentration.

Alarmist Predictions False! Not A Single Heat Wave This Summer At Cologne-Bonn

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Aug 21, 2024

To someone with a hammer

If you were looking for a really hot decade based on those stats, for which Chris Martz has now done a map like the one he did for the United States, but this time with Environment Canada data, you’d almost have to go with the 1930s, which hold the record for six of our 13 provinces and territories, with the 1920s tied with the 2020s for second. Strange, isn’t it?

Changing Climate

Paper finds the world was cooling for most of the last 2,000 years and started warming long before Big Coal arrived

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 17, 2024

Link to article: Study finds temperature reconstructions during the Common Era are affected by the selection of paleoclimate data

By Science China Press, via Phys.org, Aug 15, 2024

Link to paper: The influence of proxy selection on global annual mean temperature reconstructions during the Common Era

By Bao Yang, et al., Science China Earth Sciences, July 3, 2024

From the abstract: The reconstruction of global annual mean temperatures made by the PAGES 2k Consortium in 2019 represents one of the most influential sequences of global climate variability over the Common Era. However, it is still not clear how the reconstruction can be influenced by the selection of reconstruction methods and the selection of proxy records with different temporal resolutions over different regions.

[SEPP Comment: Steve McIntyre has shown that PAGES 2k data are bits and pieces made to fit an outcome. No standardization or control periods are used to ensure the bits and pieces measure the same thing the same way.]

Changing Seas

Somebody Knows Why

By Tony Heller, His Blog, Aug 22, 2024

Scientists are baffled about the rapid cooling of the Atlantic Ocean. I’m not baffled, because this was the core of Bill Gray’s thermohaline circulation theory.

Early Holocene Reef Growth ‘Substantial And Active’ Despite Faster-Than-Today Environmental Changes

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Aug 19, 2024

Early Holocene Reef Growth ‘Substantial And Active’ Despite Faster-Than-Today Environmental Changes

From abstract: The impact of elevated nutrients on the Holocene evolution of the Great Barrier Reef

By Kelsey L. Sanborn, et al., Quaternary Science Reviews, May 15, 2024

From abstract: These data 8 [and 7,000 years ago] suggest that increased terrigenous discharge of sediment and nutrients did not inhibit reef growth, rather led to the establishment of slower-growing, deeper and more sediment-tolerant coral communities. Understanding the capacity for reef growth under adverse environmental conditions provides insight into thresholds and resilience of the GBR over centennial-millennial timescales.

[SEPP Comment: Life adapts.]

600 years of coral at Fiji shows the ocean was just as warm in 1400AD

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 21, 2024

Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Tropical glaciers now smallest in 11,700 years, scientists find

Press Release, NSF, August 16, 2024

Link to paper: Recent tropical Andean glacier retreat is unprecedented in the Holocene

By Andrew L. Gorin, AAAS Science, Aug 1, 2024

[SEPP Comment: Amazing! Both NSF and AAAS Science think that it is significant tropical glaciers have not grown during the interglacial warm period.]

Antarctica’s ice cliff conundrum

Alexander A. Robel, AAAS Science Advances, Aug 21, 2024

Link to paper: The West Antarctic Ice Sheet may not be vulnerable to marine ice cliff instability during the 21st century

By Mathieu Morlighem, et al., AAAS Science Advances, Aug 21, 2024

Antarctic Collapse Scam Collapses

Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine

#CheerfulCharts #3: World per capita food supply

Iowa Farmers Threatened by Climate “Solutions”

By Vijay Jayaraj, CO2 Coalition, Aug 20, 2024

Yet today, these same farmers feel the very foundations of their way of life threatened by proposals to limit greenhouse gas emissions to address a fabricated climate emergency.

[SEPP Comment: The false claim by organizations that nitrous oxide emissions are a significant greenhouse gas shows the greenhouse effect ignorance of those making the claim. The effect of water vapor is more important in the frequencies (wave lengths) that nitrous oxide is active.]

Lowering Standards

Hottest Day This Year

Hottest Day This Year

The Met Office stats might be more credible if they only used pristine Class 1 stations.

Met Office Records Hottest Day of the Year at a Weather Station Next to a Massive Heat-Generating Electricity Sub-Station

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 20, 2024

Met Office Records Hottest Day of the Year at a Weather Station Next to a Massive Heat-Generating Electricity Sub-Station

[SEPP Comment: Homewood has photos of the sub-station.]

Communicating Better to the Public – Use Yellow (Green) Journalism?

No, Press Democrat, One Hottest Month Means Nothing in The Scheme of Climate Change

By Anthony Watts, Climate Realism, Aug 20, 2024

BBC climate change output blasted as ‘ludicrous’–GB News

BBC climate change output blasted as ‘ludicrous’–GB News

Article favorable to: Tall Climate Tales from the BBC, 2023

By Paul Homewood, Net Zero Watch, 2024

Click to access Homewood-BBC-2023.pdf

Homewood’s comment on BBC’s response: In other words, we cannot argue with any of the facts presented, but trust us anyway because we are cleverer than you!

BBC climate change output blasted ‘ludicrous’ as shock report exposes 30 cases of bias

By Hannah Ross, MSN.com, Accessed Aug 23, 2024

Link to: Tall Climate Tales from the BBC, 2023

[SEPP Comment: Favorable coverage on Homewood’s report.]

No, BBC, Polar Bears Are Not In Decline

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 18, 2024

No, BBC, Polar Bears Are Not In Decline

So once again, we see that the BBC is making up its news to suit an agenda.

Another complaint is being filed, and no doubt it will be at the top of next year’s BBC Tall Tales Report!!

No, Evie Magazine, Climate Change is Not Causing Anxiety

By Linnea Lueken, Climate Realism, Aug 19, 2024

Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?

Scientists discover talk is cheap

Link to: Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

By Madalina Vlascean et al., (over 250 authors), AAAS Science Advances, Feb 7, 2024

Robson: But the themes of the messages differed. Some made appeals to patriotism, some offered doom-and-gloom warnings, some went in for think-of-the-children finger-wagging, and so forth. As a control they also chose a random paragraph from a Charles Dickens novel, so they could measure how much each type of message boosts climate activism compared to one that obviously would have no effect. Then they went out into the highways and by-ways of the internet to get thousands of people around the world to participate in the experiment, arguably a study design flaw but one that should have made participants more rather than less receptive to such missives from the Ministry of Climate Truth.

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Orwellian NASA [GISS] Maps

By Tony Heller, His Blog, Aug 23, 2024

Orwellian NASA Maps

Fake US Temperature Data

[SEPP Comment; Heller shows the big difference in temperature trends between USHCN raw data and NOAA USHCN reported data.]

Faking US Temperature Data

Fabricated US temperature data from NOAA appears to have a change in their algorithm after the 1998 El Nino. The fake temperatures were shifted upwards by about three degrees.

Hottest Evah Pulled Out Of Thin Air!

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 21, 2024

Hottest Evah Pulled Out Of Thin Air!

Still, at least they [NOAA] did not site their weather stations next to airport runways and electricity sub-stations in those days!

Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda on Children

We teach kids only half the scientific method

By David Wojick, CFACT, Aug 19, 2024

In a nutshell, which is explained more fully below, only the happy half of the scientific method is being taught. This is the fun formulation of possible hypotheses and models that might explain what we observe. The hard half, where these tentative explanations get evaluated and are likely to fail, is not taught.

The Subtle Art of Teaching Climate Change

Emily Walker, Earth Day.org, Aug 15, 2024

The Subtle Art of Teaching Teachers to Teach Climate Education

Link to report: The School Guide to Climate Education: An Interdisciplinary Framework for School-Wide Implementation

By Bryce Coon, Dennis Nolasco and Emily Walker, Earth Day.org, August 2024

[SEPP Comment: No discussion of climate history such as why we are in Icehouse Earth, importance of sun, oceans, etc. Just touchy-feely topics such as Green Muscle Memory to create behavior changes.]

Expanding the Orthodoxy

If we were to create robust governance and ethics protocols around climate intervention, where would we start?

Apply to join a workshop series hosted by the U.S. National Science Foundation to discuss this critical question.

By Staff, U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), Accessed Aug 19, 2024

Questioning European Green

Germany Just Cancelled Ukraine – Was Dependence on Russian Gas the Reason?

Germany Just Cancelled Ukraine – Was Dependence on Russian Gas the Reason?

Net zero is sinking to new lows

Net zero is sinking to new lows

Questioning Green Elsewhere

Air New Zealand Scraps 2030 Carbon Target, Withdraws from SBTi

By Donna M. Airoldi, Business Travel News, July 29, 2024

Fuel Load and Forest Fires

By Don Healy, WUWT, Aug 19, 2024

The Political Games Continue

Where’s The Beef? DNC Asks Food Vendors To ‘Prioritize Lower-Emission Meats’

By Nick Pope, Daily Caller, Aug 19, 2024

Litigation Issues

‘Egregious Federal Overreach’: Utah Files Major Lawsuit That Could Diminish Federal Control Of Public Lands

By Nick Pope, Daily Caller, Aug 20, 2024

In the context of federal lands, “appropriated” land is that which has been designated for specific purposes like military use or to serve as a national park, for example, according to the state of Utah. By comparison, “unappropriated” territory is essentially land that the federal government is controlling “without formally reserving it for any designated purpose.”

DC appeals court tosses Biden administration pipeline safety rules

By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Aug 21, 2024

Writing for the majority, Judge Florence Pan, an appointee of President Biden, said the government’s cost-benefit analysis did not properly lay out why the benefits exceed the cost, the main source of the trade group’s objection.

UK approval for gas-fired power station was lawful, court rules

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 17, 2024

UK approval for gas-fired power station was lawful, court rules

EPA and other Regulators on the March

To Make America Great, We Need Federal Permitting Reform

By Heather Reams, Real Clear Energy, August 21, 2024

Federal judge permanently blocks EPA ‘disparate impact’ civil rights enforcement in Louisiana

By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Aug 23, 2024

The Thursday ruling comes after the Supreme Court ruled this summer against the so-called Chevron deference, under which federal agencies were given broader latitude to interpret federal law.

EPA determines formaldehyde causes cancer, in step toward regulation

By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Aug 21, 2024

The American Chemistry Council industry group released a statement from its formaldehyde panel saying that the EPA’s assessment “fails to reflect fundamental criticism” and said that banning the substance would have “an overwhelmingly negative impact on the environment, human health, national security, and the economy.”

[SEPP Comment: Occupational inhalation of formaldehyde can cause problems. But the average human creates and consumers over 40 grams of formaldehyde daily in producing DNA and proteins. The issue is the dose rate.]

‘Shoehorning’ a fire into the climate narrative

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 21, 2024

‘Shoehorning’ a fire into the climate narrative

[SEPP Comment: A chart shows the decrease in Federal acreage of timber harvested, v. the increase in Federal acreage of timber burned since the Spotted Owl was falsely listed as endangered due to timber harvesting. This demonstrates the abuse of the Endangered Species Act.]

Energy Issues – Non-US

Energy Price Cap Goes Up

Energy Price Cap Goes Up

New Offshore Wind Prices 17% Higher Than Market Price

New Offshore Wind Prices 17% Higher Than Market Price

OFGEM’s new Energy Price Cap is based on a wholesale price for electricity of £86.75/MWh.

This is still well below the new Administrative Strike Price for offshore wind, and also below onshore. Only solar power is slightly cheaper, but of course strike prices do not factor in all of the indirect costs associated with intermittent renewables.

Energy Issues – Australia

Bleeding Australia dry

By Alan Moran, Regulatory Review, Aug 20, 2024

Over two-thirds of our [Australia’s] exports comprise ores, coal, gas, and gold with food accounting for a further 10 per cent. And the share of these and other primary products has tended to rise.

Without these exports our living standards would be at third-world levels. And yet the miners and farmers responsible for developing and producing these exports are in the sights of the ALP [Australian Labor Party] and its associates, the greens and teals.

Transition hell: Solar plants sit idle for 4 years in NT because of fears they’d make the grid too unstable

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 23, 2024

Transition hell: Solar plants sit idle for 4 years in NT because of fears they’d make the grid too unstable

In 2016, the new Labor Government waved a magic wand and commanded they would be 50% renewable by 2030. The experts said it was doable and would save $30 million a year. They gave out the permits for large solar installations, which began construction in 2019, but then suddenly changed the rules in 2020, and wouldn’t let the solar plants connect to the main Darwin-Katherine grid. Unbelievably, 64 megawatts of solar panels that cost $40 million dollars have sat, doing nothing, for four long years.

There are only about 250,000 people living in the Northern Territory. There are two separate grids and several microgrids. All of these are perfect test cases to showcase renewable energy, as I keep saying, and none of them are managing to do it.

When will we get the message? If a town of 30,000 can’t live off the sun and wind, why would anyone bet the whole nation on it? [Boldface added]

Australia is running out of electricity to charge electric cars, and they’re only 0.9% of cars on the road

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 22, 2024

Australia is running out of electricity to charge electric cars, and they’re only 0.9% of cars on the road

Aussie EV Ambition Collides with Grid Shortage Reality

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Aug 23, 2024

Energy Issues — US

TAPS Attack: Biden Administration vs. Alaska

By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Aug 20, 2024

“It is now time for DOI and BLM to prove their worth, and whether they are truly working in the public interest, or merely pandering to the Lower-48 radical environmental elite … trying to shut down the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) … [and] Alaska.” ( U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan)

American Natural Gas Is America’s Clean Energy Standard

By Jason Hayes & Timothy G. Nash, Real Clear Energy, August 20, 2024

Debate: Is A Demonstration Project Really Necessary?

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Aug 17, 2024

Florida’s Fossil Fuel Renaissance: Why the Sunshine State is Laughing Off Climate Hysteria

By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Aug 23, 2024

Clarkson’s Attempt to Join South Carolina’s Public Service Commission

By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Aug 22, 2024

Clarkson’s Attempt to Join South Carolina’s Public Service Commission

Jim Clarkson, an energy consultant and principled libertarian, is a veteran of gas and electric politics in South Carolina and other southeastern states. Clarkson has been a thorn in the side of cronyism between the utilities and their regulators for several decades.

Summer Talking Points: Unreliable Power

Don’t blame the climate for unreliable power, blame climate policies that shut down reliable power

By Alex Epstein, His Blog, Aug 13, 2024

Return of King Coal?

Coal To Remain Cornerstone Of India’s Energy

Coal To Remain Cornerstone Of India’s Energy

India clearly has enough coal reserves to keep it going for hundreds of years, and there is no sign that India will start cutting back on coal output or consumption any time soon.

India produces 11% of the world’s coal.

Coal to be the Cornerstone of India’s Energy Continuity

By Riya Vyas, World Coal, August 2024, pp 11 & 12 [H/t Dennis Ambler]

Nuclear Energy and Fears

Tangled Comparisons: Renewables Versus Fossil Fuels

By Norman Rogers, Real Clear Energy, August 21, 2024

If there is a looming climate catastrophe, the only thing that will save us is nuclear power. Wind and solar are incredibly expensive methods of reducing CO2 emissions. The more wind and solar you build, the cost of removing CO2 increases disproportionately.

US Plans to Start Recycling Nuclear Waste

‘Used nuclear fuel is only waste if you waste it,’ the communications director at a recycling company says.

By Kevin Stocklin, The Epoch Times, Aug 18, 2024 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees America’s nuclear power industry, “identified 23 gaps in its own regulations for reprocessing, which it never has completely resolved,” Roberts [communications director of [Orano a] reprocessing firm said, although “the means to overcome those gaps have largely been identified.”

In addition to regulatory issues, there is also U.S. law to contend with.

“Any effort to take a new look at this valuable national resource and take a recycling sustainable approach wasn’t really possible because you would have to change the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and that would take bipartisan support,” McGinnis said. [Ed McGinnis, CEO of Curio, a company that plans to recycle fuel in America,]

[SEPP Comment: Reprocessing was shut down by the Carter Administration. Since then, politicians have promoted fear.]

Where Are The Pro-Nuclear Democrats?

Once again, nuclear energy is absent from the Democratic Party Platform and it’s gone missing at the same time China is accelerating its nuclear buildout. Plus, radio and podcast hits.

By Robert Bryce, His Blog, Aug 21, 2024

Toward the end of our conversation, he said that one of the biggest problems with nuclear energy is that it needs bipartisan support in Congress. That hasn’t happened because “Democrats are pro-government and anti-nuclear,” he said. Meanwhile, “Republicans are pro-nuclear and anti-government.”

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

The Solar Panel cyber threat: Dutch hacker gets into 4 million panels in 150 countries

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 20, 2024

The Short Lives of Wind Turbines

By Ron Clutz, Science Matters, Aug 21, 2024

The Short Lives of Wind Turbines

Video and text

Link to: Wind Power Economics – Rhetoric and Reality

By Gordon Hughes, Renewable Energy Foundation, UK, Nov 3, 2020

[SEPP Comment: From the data, in Denmark for larger 2+ MW (newer) offshore turbines, after about 20 month of production, the first-time failure rate approaches 40%. The half-life when 50% or more fail the first time is about 50 months (4.12 years).]

Offshore Wind Turbines May Kill You

By G. Allen Brooks, Real Clear Energy, August 2024

Click to access 2493_offshore_wind_turbines_may_kill_you.pdf

[SEPP Comment: Analyzes the issue than offshore wind turbines interfere with radar needed for commercial airports and marine search and rescue operations. The hope for a new radar technology is not the same as having a new radar technology.]

U.S. Offshore Wind: The Struggle Continues

By Kennedy Maize, Master Resource, Aug 21, 2024

This post updates the financial troubles of Denmark’s Ørsted, recent BOEM auctions, and pushback against Maryland governor Wes Moore. Today, operational offshore wind capacity is less than 50 megawatts versus the Biden-Harris Administration goal of 30,000 MW by 2030.

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

The Cascade of Failures in the Biofuel Industry: A Case of Economic and Environmental Mismanagement

By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Aug 18, 2024

In the end, the biofuel experiment has left behind a trail of bankruptcies, environmental degradation, and unfulfilled promises. It serves as a stark reminder that the pursuit of green energy solutions must be grounded in reality, not wishful thinking. As we look to the future of energy, it is crucial to learn from the mistakes of the past and ensure that our energy supply and development is based on sound science and economics, not on ideological fervor.

[SEPP Comment; Subsidies for biofuels began with The Energy Policy Act of 1978, when the Carter administration feared that the US would soon run out of oil and natural gas. When unexpected technological breakthroughs proved this to be wrong, the subsidies should have stopped.]

‘Mostly unusable’ | Existing gas pipes would need massive retrofit or crippling de-rating to carry hydrogen: study

‘Mostly unusable’ | Existing gas pipes would need massive retrofit or crippling de-rating to carry hydrogen: study

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles

If Ford can’t crack electric cars, no one can

If Ford can’t crack electric cars, no one can

California Dreaming

Floating Offshore Wind – An Environmental Catastrophe

By Edward Ring, What’s Current, Accessed Aug 22, 2024

Last week we examined California’s plans to install between 2,500 and 10,000 floating offshore wind turbines approximately 20 miles off the coast of San Luis Obispo and Humboldt counties. The estimated cost to install 25 gigawatts of capacity, which equates to 10 gigawatts of steady power if adequate storage assets are available, is at least $100 billion.

[SEPP Comment: And no one knows how much the needed storage will cost!]

Guice to California Dept. of Conservation: End Virtue Signaling, Liberate Oil and Gas

By Rod Guice, Master Resource, Aug 23, 2024

It’s been sitting there for 73 years. So, what is it about the well that makes it hazardous now? Why is it only now, a threat to “public health, safety, and environment?” If the well is so hazardous, why wasn’t it plugged 40-years ago?

Environmental Industry

Climate groups say they’re putting $55M into pro-Harris ads

By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Aug 19, 2024

From Dust to Green: The Ever-Shifting Sands of Climate Alarmism

By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Aug 19, 2024

“Desertification was supposed to be the ‘greatest environmental challenge of our time.’ Why are experts now worried about greening?”

BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE

Newly discovered tarantulas may already be in danger

Aphonopelma jacobii’s habitat is getting hotter and drier.

By Andrew Paul, Popular Science, Aug 20, 2024

By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, Aug 20, 2024

Lock Up Your Daughters! Climate Change Causes Rise in Child Marriages

By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, Aug 18, 2024 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]

The AFP nonsense story is just the latest in a tidal wave of mainstream fear-mongering designed to boost Net Zero. It takes an emotional theme and tacks on unprovable claims of climate damage caused by humans. The emotion is obvious, but false claims about the volume of rainfall and the inundation of a recent flood are made. Do the people who write this stuff think that nobody will check their facts and sources? Apparently not.

1. Why Is New York Paying So Much for Wind Power?

Two projects will pay producers prices far above the break-even cost of generating electricity.

By Gordon Hughes, WSJ, Aug. 23, 2024

The energy scholar begins with:

“New York state signed a contract in June to buy electricity generated by two large wind farms, Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind, off the coast of Long Island. The projects are expected to begin in 2026 and 2027, with power delivered to Brooklyn (Empire) and Long Island (Sunrise). The state will pay $155 and $146 per megawatt-hour, respectively. These prices are steep, at least four times the average grid cost paid over the past year. New Yorkers should be asking why.

States agree to pay wind-power operators—known as the “offtake price”—based on a project’s “break-even cost,” the estimated bill for building and operating the wind farm over its useful life. That is undoubtedly part of the problem. The offshore wind business off the East Coast is in turmoil. Operators have canceled projects from Massachusetts to Maryland that were due to be constructed in the next four years. Some have been delayed, while others have renegotiated their contracts at prices 30% to 50% higher than originally promised.

Two widely quoted sources of break-even costs are the U.S. Energy Information Administration and Lazard, an investment bank. In its most recent estimates, the EIA suggests the average break-even cost of offshore wind farms, adjusted to 2024 prices, is $131 per megawatt-hour, not counting government subsidies, and $101 per megawatt-hour after allowing for basic tax credits. The latter figure is what matters, because every offshore wind farm expects to take advantage of investment or production tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Lazard is far more optimistic about break-even costs. Its 2024 estimates imply a minimum of $53 per megawatt-hour and a maximum of $79 after tax credits.

Both estimates refer to offshore wind projects expected to reach full output in 2027, as are Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise. Why, then, has New York agreed to pay much higher prices?”

The author gives some details of the bidding then concludes:

“The difference between these new agreements and the hypothetical break-even costs produced by the EIA and Lazard means one of two things: either the true break-even costs are 50% to 100% higher than what the EIA and Lazard claim, or the projects will earn huge profits at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and New York ratepayers.

The EIA and Lazard both assume much lower capital and annual operating costs for U.S. projects than the actual costs for large offshore wind farms in the North Sea. European supply chains and firms are far more developed than in the U.S., which would mean higher prices for projects in the states.

Using actual European capital and operating costs, Empire Wind will be exceptionally profitable, with an after-tax return on equity of 24% thanks to a federal investment tax credit of 30% of the construction cost. If Empire Wind qualifies for a 40% investment tax credit, which it is likely to do after the Biden administration reinterpreted the requirements under the Inflation Reduction Act, the company’s pretax return would be even higher. If these return estimates are true, New York made a drastic mistake in agreeing to the offtake price of $155 per megawatt hour. Meanwhile, the average wholesale value of power in New York from July 2023 to June 2024 was $36 per megawatt hour.

In addition, Equinor and Orsted will each receive a total subsidy of more than $3 billion courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. Who is the patsy here? Are American taxpayers funding an extraordinarily expensive form of electricity generation? Did New York sign an agreement that allows large wind-farm operators to earn unreasonably high after-tax profits at the expense of its residents? Or both? Either way, New Yorkers are the big losers.”

energy conservation and renewable energy essay

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

Essay on Renewable Energy

Cite this paper

Related articles

Most popular essays

Join our 150k of happy users

This Is the Future: Essay on Renewable Energy

Top 5 Types of Renewable Energy: The Apollo Alliance Rankings

Solar Renewable Energy

Wind Renewable Energy

Geothermal Renewable Energy

Ocean Renewable Energy

Biomass Renewable Energy

What Is the Apollo Alliance?

Why Renewable Energy Is Important for the Future

Advantage of Green Energy

Disadvantages of Non-Conventional Energy Sources

Frequently asked questions

New posts to your inbox!

The Future of Sustainable Energy

Current Trends in Sustainability

Recent Breakthroughs in Renewable Power

Driving Electric Vehicles Forward

Cost-Effective Storage For Renewable Power

Unlocking the Potential of Microgrids

Advancing the Future of Sustainable Energy

About the MA in Sustainable Energy (online) Program at Johns Hopkins SAIS

Request Information

Connect with us

Renewable energy, explained

Types of renewable energy sources

You May Also Like

Can energy harnessed from Earth’s interior help power the world?

How the historic climate bill will dramatically reduce U.S. emissions

We took the Great American Road Trip—in electric cars

Ways to boost renewable energy

Related Topics

5 environmental victories from 2021 that offer hope

Activists fear a new threat to biodiversity—renewable energy

How the Ukraine war is accelerating Germany's renewable energy transition

3 ways COVID-19 is making us rethink energy and emissions

Let’s not waste this crucial moment: We need to stop abusing the planet

History & Culture

Energy Conservation

What is Energy Conservation?

Best Ways to Conserve Energy in Daily Life

Benefits of Conservation of Energy

Frequently Asked Questions – FAQs

State law of conservation of energy

Give an example to explain energy transformation from one form to another.

Explain two ways in which energy can be saved in day-to-day life.

What are the ways in which energy can be transferred?

What is energy conservation?

What are the benefits of energy conservation?

Watch the video and find out conservation measures we can take to save the natural resources depleting at an alarming rate.

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Renewable Energy Explained

Braes of Doune Wind Farm

Media Credits

Production Managers

User Permissions

Interactives

Related Resources

Impacts of climate change on energy systems in global and regional scenarios

Access options

Similar content being viewed by others

A framework for national scenarios with varying emission reductions

Spread in climate policy scenarios unravelled

A multi-model analysis of long-term emissions and warming implications of current mitigation efforts

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Supplementary information

Source data

Source Data Fig. 3

Source Data Fig. 4

Rights and permissions

About this article