Renewables alone may not cut U.S. fossil fuel use

The world is rapidly investing in renewable energy to combat climate change. Solar panels, wind farms, and hydroelectric plants are spreading across landscapes once dominated by coal plants and oil rigs.

These changes give the impression of an inevitable transition away from fossil fuels. Yet a new study from Penn State suggests that this shift might not be as straightforward as it seems.

Professor Ryan Thombs, a rural sociology researcher, examined more than two decades of U.S. energy data. His findings challenge a common belief: that building more renewable energy sources will naturally lead to a decrease in fossil fuel production.

The research, published in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, paints a more complex picture of energy use in the United States.

Renewable growth and fossil fuel use

Thombs analyzed fuel production data from 33 U.S. states that produce fossil fuels. His dataset spanned from 1997 to 2020, covering coal, natural gas, crude oil, and various renewable sources including wind, solar, hydro, and biofuels.

The United States, as the world’s second-largest energy producer and greenhouse gas emitter, offers a crucial case study for understanding global energy transitions.

When Thombs looked at how renewable energy production varied alongside fossil fuel output, he found no significant link. States that ramped up renewables didn’t necessarily reduce their fossil fuel production.

This suggests that renewable growth alone does not push out fossil fuel use. Instead, the study shows that over 96% of the differences in fossil fuel production between states can be explained by fixed factors unique to each state.

These factors include the amount of fossil fuel deposits underground, the strength of local fossil fuel industries, and historical patterns of energy development. In short, geography and legacy infrastructure matter more than many policy assumptions suggest.

Renewables won’t displace fossil fuels

The disconnect between policy expectations and real-world outcomes is important. Many environmental strategies assume that increasing renewable energy will automatically shrink fossil fuel production. Thombs argues this assumption needs reevaluation.

“Policies could include ones that directly limit fossil fuel production through carbon taxes, setting production caps on fossil fuels and keeping fossil fuel reserves in the ground,” he said.

Such policies would directly address fossil fuel use rather than relying on indirect market competition. Without these measures, fossil fuel-rich states may continue extracting oil, coal, and gas – even as they expand their renewable portfolios.

This is particularly true in states where both types of energy resources exist side by side. Instead of displacing fossil fuels, renewables may simply be added to the mix. This outcome weakens efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet climate targets.

Fossil fuels still dominate global emissions

Climate science leaves little doubt about the consequences of continued fossil fuel use. According to the United Nations, fossil fuels are responsible for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90% of carbon dioxide emissions.

Reducing reliance on these sources is essential for limiting global temperature rise and avoiding the most severe climate impacts.

In recent years, renewable energy has grown rapidly and now leads new energy generation projects in many parts of the world. This expansion creates a sense of momentum.

Yet, Thombs’ research warns against overconfidence. He notes that assuming renewable growth alone can reduce fossil fuel use may result in weak or incomplete policies.

“However, many policies to this point assume that growth in renewable energy corresponds with a proportional decrease in fossil fuels,” he said.

“If it doesn’t, then we may need to implement additional policies to reduce fossil fuel production directly rather than hope that deploying renewables will crowd out fossil fuels.”

Renewables fail to replace fossil fuels

To ensure that his conclusions held up, Thombs used three different statistical modeling techniques. He worked with state-level data on per capita production of both fossil fuels and renewables. This included geothermal, wind, solar thermal, photovoltaic, hydroelectric, biofuels, and waste-based sources.

Despite the diversity in energy types and methods of analysis, the results remained consistent. The growth of renewables did not correlate with a decline in fossil fuel output.

The findings suggest that entrenched patterns of fossil fuel use won’t simply shift with market changes alone.

The study also indicates that states with large fossil fuel reserves have deeply rooted advantages in continuing extraction. These advantages, tied to geology and existing infrastructure, make it hard for renewables to replace fossil fuels unless laws or regulations intervene.

Stronger regulations are needed

Thombs acknowledges the study has some boundaries. The analysis applies specifically to the U.S. and only covers the years from 1997 to 2020.

Global energy dynamics or more recent data might produce different results. Still, the findings offer a useful starting point for thinking about energy policy in similar industrialized nations.

“It’s possible that renewables will substitute fossil fuels as the broader political economy transforms, especially if state regulations are implemented,” he said.

“However, the findings do demonstrate that any such transition will be hindered by the close proximity of renewable and fossil fuel resources in many fossil-fuel-dependent states.”

This dual presence of resources can trap states in a mixed-energy status. Without stronger policies that directly curb fossil fuel use, these states may maintain both systems rather than phasing one out.

Implications for future energy strategies

Thombs’ work points toward a broader conclusion: the U.S. needs a layered approach to energy transition. Investing in renewables remains important, but it cannot stand alone. Policymakers should also create legal and economic barriers to fossil fuel extraction if they want to see real change.

This could involve setting caps on fossil fuel production, taxing carbon emissions, or legally designating certain reserves to remain untapped. Each strategy comes with political and economic trade-offs, but the study suggests such moves are necessary.

The energy transition won’t happen just because renewables get cheaper or more abundant. Real reductions in fossil fuel use will likely depend on active decisions to limit their production. Only then can renewables take center stage – not just as additions, but as true replacements.

The study is published in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–