Tom Steyer’s Impossible Dream of A Renewable Future
Tom Steyer has an impossible dream.
“We are going to electrify the planet…We’re going to get off fossil fuels.”
He’s written a book called Cheaper, Faster, Better: How We’ll Win the Climate War. He argues that renewable energy is the most affordable of all energy sources, that it offers a quicker solution to climate change than natural gas, and that it will ultimately be more beneficial for the world.
He’s wrong. Renewable energy is neither cheaper nor faster. It may be better for some hypothetical civilization, but not for the one we live in.
“If you look at the cost of renewables versus fossil fuels in terms of producing electricity,
they’re much cheaper. People think for some reason that renewables are more expensive. Not true. The reason that 86% of new electricity generation was renewable is because it’s a better deal.”
Electric power generated from wind or solar, combined with backup power for intermittent load balancing, is more expensive than power from natural gas with carbon capture (Figure 1). Moreover, natural gas without carbon capture is more cost-effective than wind or solar without backup.
Source: EIA, Lazard & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
High rates of new electric generating capacity from renewables are impressive, but they don’t change the fact that wind and solar currently make up only 6 percent of global capacity. When starting from a low base, growth appears rapid, but as penetration rates increase, growth naturally slows.
Renewables are only “a better deal” as long as governments guarantee their profitability through subsidies, tax credits and use mandates.
“I know that there is a theory which says renewables are cheaper, so it will be a lower price. We don’t think so because a system where you [have] more renewable intermittency is less efficient . . . so we think it’s an interesting field to invest in.”
Patrick Pouyanné, CEO of TotalEnergies
It’s unclear why Steyer believes that decarbonizing with renewable energy will be faster than with natural gas. In 2023, natural gas accounted for 25% of electricity generation and 24% of total energy supply, while wind and solar contributed just 6 percent to power generation and less than 3 percent to total energy supply.
Reducing coal use in electricity generation is a critical and attainable goal, achievable by increasing reliance on gas-fired power. Between 2005 and 2023, CO2 emissions in the United States dropped by 721 million metric tons (30%) as natural gas replaced coal in electricity production. This approach could serve as a valuable model for other countries to follow.
as natural gas has offset coal as the dominant source of electric power generation.
Source: EIA & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
Steyer’s core assumption is that the world can completely transition away from fossil fuels.
“There are a couple widely held beliefs that I think are just wrong. One of them is that we
can’t get off fossil fuels. And it is true that we can’t get off fossil fuels today but it’s not true that we can’t get off fossil fuels over time.”“And the other one is that somehow in climate we have a doom loop that we’re not going to be able to successfully combat.”
No international energy agency supports Steyer’s claim that the world can eliminate fossil fuel use within the next few decades. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that fossil fuels will still comprise 63 percent of final energy consumption by 2050 under its stated policies scenario (Figure 3). ExxonMobil estimates a 68 percent share, while the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts 70 percent by 2050.
Source: IEA & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
Focusing solely on electric power, ExxonMobil projects that fossil fuels will still make up 46 percent of electricity generation and meet 35 percent of electricity demand by 2050 (Figure 4). The EIA expects fossil fuels to fulfill 42 percent of electricity demand, while the typically optimistic IEA forecasts a reduced share of 21 percent by 2050.
and 35% of electricity demand in 2050.
Source: Exxon & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
It’s true that renewables would be better for the planet if their addition led to a reduction in fossil fuel use, but that’s not the current reality. Instead, climate change is winning.
New energy sources are being added on top of existing ones, rather than replacing them (Figure 5). Since 2020, total energy consumption has risen by 61 EJ (exajoules) (11 percent). Without a reduction in overall energy consumption, there will be no meaningful progress in reducing atmospheric carbon levels.
CO2 emissions have risen by 2 billion tons since 2020. Fossil fuel consumption has grown by 38 EJ, while wind and solar have increased by 14 EJ, and nuclear and hydro have added another 8 EJ.
Source: EI, NOAA & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
“No high-income country is even close to meeting their Paris climate change obligations, with even the best performers on course to take more than 200 years to cut emissions to zero at existing rates of mitigation.”
Despite clear evidence that the world’s efforts to decarbonize are falling short, there continues to be a wave of optimistic statements claiming that renewables are on course to replace fossil fuels. These assertions offer false hope and downplay the significant and complex challenge of genuinely reducing carbon emissions.
Tom Steyer is one of those voices. He believes that the market is solving the climate problem.
“This is a problem. It’s a big problem and it is susceptible to the exact same kind of structure of society, and value system that has made America succeed, and has made us the richest, freest country in the history of the world.
“We just need to do exactly what we’ve done in the past…And we will in fact succeed in this transition and do something together that we can really be proud of in addition to making a whole bunch of money.
“Capitalism, profits, scale.”
That’s a good stump speech, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Renewables have benefited greatly from government policies and the influx of public funds resulting from those policies. However, even after 20 years and $10 trillion invested, renewable energy remains a mere rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
Steyer’s focus is narrow. He equates eliminating fossil fuels from electricity generation with winning the battle against climate change. He appears unaware of the connection between the growth of the human superorganism, and the broader issue of ecological overshoot, of which climate change is a principal symptom.
“They have examined parts and missed the whole, and their blindness is even worthy of wonder.”
—Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (1880)
Steyer might label me as part of the “doom loop,” but realism should not be mistaken for pessimism. Relying on market forces, American exceptionalism, and the misleading notion that renewables are cheaper than other energy sources is no replacement for an honest evaluation of the magnitude of the challenge we face.
Like Art's Work?
Share this Post:
Read More Posts
Time and money-wise a dramatic increase in nucleair energy does not seem to be a viable option.
An other argument against a dramatic increase in Nucleair energy is the limited supply of uranium. Do you have any thoughts about the amount of reasonably cheap/easy recoverable uranium deposits? How long will the known deposits last? And what if we double, triple, quadruple the number of nuclear reactors?
Bart,
I don’t waste a lot of time worrying about things that can’t make a difference. Nuclear cannot scale fast enough to matter. End of discussion for me.
All the best,
Art
The Dostoyevsky quote at the ends sums up the whole story. When are the experts going to get out of their silos and try to look at the whole ball of wax? As Hegel once said: “The truth is the whole.” What today we call “systems thinking.”
Ed,
Dostoevsky saw clearly in 1880 what most cannot see today.
All the best,
Art
As a German I would like to add – Not only will the market not solve the problem. A dirigiste planned economy will not solve it either. We are trying this out very expensively and ever more intensively in Germany.
Result: Highest electricity prices, deindustrialization – resulting in minimal official CO2 reduction. To be honest, this CO2 (and much more) is only produced elsewhere. Lost the money, gained nothing for the planet.
The only solution I can imagine is: Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear (dual fluid) + storage technology. it has to be affordable to get adopted.
Rolf,
I agree with everything you said until you mentioned nuclear.
I have written extensively on nuclear. If we ignore all of its problems–public opposition, risk, costs, permitting, etc.–it simply cannot be scaled fast enough to make a difference.
This post is a good place to start (but there are more on my website–all for free): “Nuclear Is Not The Answer” https://www.artberman.com/blog/nuclear-is-not-the-answer/
All the best,
Art
Hi artberman.com webmaster, You always provide useful tips and best practices.
Thanks, Regina.
All the best,
Art
In those calculations, are the cost for maintenance and replacement included? Solar cells might get 30 years of service, but windmills in the ocean don’t last long in that environment.
Another problem is the system of spot price. When wind is blowing the price goes down, even negative sometimes. Some owners have found it better to not run the windmills as maintenance cost exceed profit, at least in Europe.
P-O,
I have the data for operating and maintenance costs but did not include them in the chart and discussion to keep things relatively simple. Even so, I’ve gotten lots of objections because people simply cannot believe that which contradicts what they prefer to believe, and what is broadcast in the mainstream.
All the best,
Art
Another excellent comment. I have been watching your posts and interviews for a while. You provide one of the best perspectives of the (non-) energy transition. I’ve even used some of your data in my teaching.
A full energy transition to replace use at the current global level is probably not possible due to ore grade depletion. Average copper ore grades have declined from around 2-5 % to around 0.5-0.1 % over the last 100 years. And the minerals being processed are more disseminated and finer grained. This all requires more energy and water, and rock waste. No mine of significant size operates without diesel and gas. But this won’t stop us trying to transition while we cause ecological destruction and push local farmers off their land.
I wish the various groups would not embrace solar and wind without the added requirement for a 30-60% total energy reduction in rich countries.
Phil,
Thanks for your comments and I’m gratified that you find my work useful for teaching young people.
I believe that humans replaced their reverence for nature and our place in it with technology beginning about 5000 years. We cannot abandon our faith in that despite contrary evidence because it is a belief.
I wrote about these ideas in a recent post “Populism: The Fourth Horseman of The Coming Decade”: https://www.artberman.com/blog/populism-the-fourth-horseman-of-the-coming-decade/
In it, I mention some of my guiding lights on this and other topics including Iain McGilchrist, David Bohm, Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell.
All the best,
Art
Thanks for your efforts, Art,
I agree that current growth in renewables is below what would be required to displace existing fossil energy (rather than simply complement it). I certainly agree that renewables aren’t a silver bullet.
I’m less convinced about your claim that renewables can’t power our civilisation. I think it’s entirely possible that we will successfully shift to renewables — however, I think the main constraint is time. The question I think must be answered is: is it possible to transition to renewables in time to prevent civilisation-damaging ecological damage? I increasingly think the answer is ‘no’.
Possibly this becomes a conversation about “what counts as ‘our civilisation’ — I think we are essentially the same civilisation as in c1900 — if we had a similar population in developed countries as was in 1900 (about 1/4 current levels?), but current consumption rates, it would give us a lot more breathing room to implement needed changes.
Of course, that’s a hypothetical, but illustrates the idea — somehow we’re going to need to cut our consumption in the short term to facilitate our long term survival. I see no mechanism, except chaos, by which this is likely to happen — but I think this isn’t a problem with renewables per se, it’s just that we’ve painted ourselves into a corner and there’s no way out.
Cheers, Gus
By the year 2050 the population of the world is expected to increase by 2 billion people to about 10 billion, a 20% increase from today. People require energy intensive resources to survive, especially in developed nations. Energy use will continue to increase, meaning any energy source will only be added to current energy supply, not replacing anything, as you said.
Mining for renewables is another problem. How much lithium do we need to “electrify” the world, and how will we get it? I’m not sure of the first, but machines than mine minerals run on diesel. That is not going to change. You can’t run a full scale mining operation on solar panels.
The thing that really scares me is that the youth are losing hope. I think they see that the older generation for the most part does not give a damn about climate change, or their future. What will happen when very large numbers of disaffected youth are the ones in charge? Depressed young people whose life experiences don’t improve often become angry adults. If you think lack of civility is bad now, give it 10 or 20 years. Today will be the good old days. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(24)00163-9/abstract
Ryan,
I understand your concern but remind you about Prigogine’s observation:
“When a complex system is far from equilibrium, small islands of coherence in a sea of chaos have the capacity to shift the entire system to a higher order.”
—Ilya Prigogine
Young people can be those islands of coherence. It’s far from a guarantee but it’s a possibility. By the way, I think that hope is just another form of fear.
All the best,
Art
Art,
First, really appreciate the Dostoyevsky quote you’ve identified to associate with this post. Perfect!
Oh, data master Art, but you are! So is he (and all of us)…the difference is he seems actually to believes, and spends money oblivious to the ‘whole’ he either stubbornly ignores or actually does not see.
It is incontrovertible that ‘doing exactly what we’ve done in the past’…’same kind of structure of society’ will NOT, has NOT ‘in fact allow us to succeed in this transition’. Ah, and, his admonish ‘in addition making a whole bunch of money’ breaks it!
How wrong can one wealthy, powerful person be? Please allow me to state immediately, I love this country indeed but, yes, for the ‘value system’ Mr. Steyer mentions that had us first select the right path, leaving personal fortune aside ‘to get the job’ done. We had both the leadership and moral fiber among the citizenry to; 1) commit and mean it 2) find a way to prevail! AGAINST ALL ODDS.
Starting with the revolutionary war, the civil war, WWII, confronting nuclear winter and at least leaders of the world with all that is wrong have kept that unspeakable end in check…and now energy transition/climate change…do we have what it takes? Let alone making MORE $$, in the transition the ability to sacrifice to eventually allow following generations to thrive?? Well…not yet it seems. Thank you having all of us ‘think’ around these posts Art. That’s it…
John,
Thanks as always for your thoughtful comments.
All the best,
Art
If gasoline, prices were jacked up to $10 a gallon over four years and the price of electricity was to go up by a factor of 10 over four years, we would see a stunning drop in energy consumption in this country. This country’s s tax structure has done near nothing to discourage the use of fossil fuels and encourage renewables and energy conservation. Of course, energy use is going up. There’s nothing to disincentivize us from using more and more energy.
Everything comes back to the old digging the hole axiom, “Stop the F’-ing digging you idiots!!i
Dave,
It’s not that simple because governance is increasingly fragile. If the gasoline tax were raised as you suggest, there would be riots as we’ve seen in other countries. Populist demagogues would fan that fire into a revolution.
Fossil Fuels are not the problem. Our demand fossil fuels is the problem.
All the best,
Art
I am completely dismayed at the people who say
“Switching from a fossil fuel powered civilization to a renewable powered civilization
is not a problem….
barely an inconvenience.”
It is like saying you can turn an animal that consumes stored energy from food
into a plant that taps into the flow of solar energy to power itself.
These are two very different types of organisms. Both the structure and behavior of plants and animals are fundamentally different. And that fact seems to slip by the renewable advocates.
Dobbs,
Thanks for your comments.
All the best,
Art
Art
Where are all of these fossil fuels going to come from?
Richard,
There are plenty of fossil fuels for decades to come.
All the best,
Art