Is it better to replace fossil fuel with renewable energy?
Robert Caba and Dr. Freymiller, in “Out with the Old, In with the Renewable” made an analysis of how renewable energy will replace fossil fuel. Renewable energy, an energy that will not deplete after its use, is unlimited and far more efficient than any other source of energy since civilization harnessed energy into their daily life. Caba stated, that conducting the clean energy movement might be complex and expensive, but the plethora of benefits ranging from individual to global scale will be worth taking the risk. These alternative energies can be harnessed to generate electricity, heat, and other chemicals if obtained from fossil fuels usually impacts negatively on the environment.
Furthermore, alternative energy can not only help conserve money but also potentially generate revenue. Robert proves this from a cite used (Pollin and Heintz) that in the United States of America, a 150 billion dollar investment into this new industry would result in 1.7 million job opportunities, decreasing the unemployment rate in America by an entire percentage. The rapid growth of the employment rate is caused by the industries' intensive labor covering installments, maintenance, and overall needing a wide array of manpower, Caba elucidates.
Both authors believe with optimism why Earth’s main source of energy should shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. It helps to increase the overall economic efficiency, by creating millions of vacant jobs. Around the same time, oil costs or any conventional energy will be lower, which would allow the customer to save more money. Moreover, they emphasize the importance of this shift on the slow rate of climate change and global warming as well as physiological needs by increasing reservoirs of safe drinking water, food supply, and shelter that benefitted from renewable energy. Hence, Caba and Freymiller express their thoughts on how renewable energy will replace conventional energy sources such as fossil fuels in the near future with immaculate benefits.
Although renewable energy may be beneficial, there are some repercussions of this change. As a wise consumer, it will be nice to compare what is worth sacrificing to obtain these — yes, long-term benefits — which come with short-term consequences. The intermittency of renewable energy cannot provide the forever raging demand for energy from society. It is also not cost-effective because renewable energy, as of now, is extremely spasmodic. Furthermore, producing the apparatus and materials needed to install solar panels, wind turbines, and upcoming green technologies requires natural resources which need to be extensively mined.
In regards to Caba’s statement on how renewable energy is technically “free” post-installation. Mining the already scarce natural resources for materials and the usage of fossil fuels mainly used for transportation will likely give more damage than using fossil-fueled energy. Mining for materials may be a one-time gig as engines and facilities for renewable energies only need to be constructed once with additional maintenance later on. The problem is with the increasing demand for renewable energy meaning more supplies and materials are required.
Additional threats to ecosystems would clearly be generated from extensive mining of mining fields, and research led by indicates that a larger proportion of mines target renewable energy materials which further intensify threats to biodiversity in some areas. Habitat loss and degradation currently threaten >80% of endangered species, while climate change directly affects 20% (Sonter et al., 2020)
Despite the fact that a policy strategy might be planned in the future to ensure that the mining risks to biodiversity arising from the development of green resources do not outweigh the threats to the environment (Sonter et al., 2020), fossil fuels will still be the main gear for generating the production of green technology.
A study of wind and solar development in 26 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries between 1990 and 2013 found that the backup capacity required for intermittent renewables dependent on fossil fuel is just about equal to the installed renewable capacity (Ireland, 2016).
Furthermore, many components of wind turbines and solar panels are manufactured in China and transported in ships that burn heavy fuel oil or diesel. Components and materials required for constructing the wind turbine and solar panel are made in China or some countries with low-wage jobs and exported by container ships burning heavy fuel oil or diesel fuel. The wind turbine and solar panel parts are shipped from ports around the world, then trucks are required to carry them inland to the factory and field. Most trucks and excavators to mine and transport burn diesel, although more environmentally friendly compressed and liquefied natural gas (CNG and LNG) are increasingly popular (Ireland, 2016). Whereas Caba stated that the process of transportation and maintenance is minimized allowing prices to stay constant throughout the years.
In addition, prices for the components, materials, and maintenance are not cost-effective. Without heavy federal subsidies, renewable energy with its present supply is either not cost-effective, consumes vast quantities of land, or damages the environment in any manner (Pyke, 2017). Intermittency is one of the core problems of this non-effectiveness. Solar heat is only present during the day. While wind, being very intermittent, depends on the season, and until now scientists still cannot figure out how to manage and “manipulate” wind’s direction to harness its energy over a constant period of time.
Collectively, fossil fuels will not be replaced with renewable energy. Possibly, but definitely not in the near future of today’s lifetime. Our society still lies on level .7 on the Kardashev scale (Creighton, 2016), making it harder to control and utilize Earth’s renewable resources for energy without utilizing fossil fuels.
In conclusion, deciding between more mining for renewables and continuing to rely on fossil fuels is deciding between completely different sides of the spectrum because we are gambling between a profitable yet doubtful green technology industry and the nuclear and fossil industry whereas it’s more predictable and controllable. “There is no such thing as a free lunch,” says Charles Barnhart, a professor of energy studies at Western Washington University. One thing to know though, up until now and definitely not by 2050 (Lyman, 2016) we cannot replace fossil fuel with renewable energy.
