solar and wind energy essay

Wind and Solar Energy as a Sources of Alternative Energy Research Paper

Introduction, wind turbine energy technology, solar energy technology, cost, efficiency and energy produced via wind and solar technology, resources required for wind and solar systems.

There is an urgent need for dependable, efficient and low-cost energy to alleviate problems of energy insecurity as well as environmental pollution. For example, Jacobson and Masters (2001) proposed that the U.S. could meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations for decreasing carbon dioxide discharges by substituting 60% of its coal production plants with wind energy turbines to supplement the country’s energy requirements (p.1438).

Fthenakis, Mason and Zweibel (2009) also examined the economical, geographical and technical viability of solar power to supplement the energy requirements of the U.S. and concluded that it was possible to substitute the current fossil fuel energy infrastructure with solar energy in order to decrease carbon emissions to internationally accepted levels (p.397).

There is no doubt that efforts to adopt renewable, effective and low-cost energy options have attracted global attention. Consequently, this paper will compare two forms renewable energy (wind and solar energy) in terms of cost, efficiency, energy produced, resources needed, environmental impact and maintenance.

Wind turbines usually convert wind energy into electricity. Generally, a gearbox rotates the turbine rotor into fast-rotating gears that eventually transform mechanical energy into electricity in a generator. Although a number of current turbines are gearless and less proficient, they are nonetheless useful when installed in buildings or residential homes (Jacobson & Delucchi, 2011, p.1157).

Solar photo-voltaics (PVs) refers to groups of cells with silicon materials that transform solar radiation into electricity. As of now, solar PVs are utilized in several different applications, ranging from residential home power generation to medium-scale use. On the other hand, concentrated solar power (CSP) systems utilize reflective lenses or mirrors to focus sunbeams on a liquid to warm it to a high temperature.

The heated liquid runs from the collector to a heat engine in which a part of the heat is transformed into electricity. There are various forms of CSP systems that permit the heat to be stocked up for several hours to facilitate production of electricity at night (Jacobson & Delucchi, 2011, p.1157).

Figure 1(see appendix) provides the projected amount of power available globally from renewable energy with respect to raw resources available in high-energy regions. It is worth mentioning that these resources can plausibly be mined in the near future given the location as well as the low extraction costs involved.

Figure 1 demonstrates that only wind and solar energy can provide adequate power to meet global energy demands. For example, wind in developable regions can satisfy global energy demands up to about 4 times over while areas with solar energy potential can meet global demands by over 18 times over (Jacobson & Delucchi, 2011, p.1159). Figure 2 illustrates a model of wind resources at 100m in the hub height range of wind turbines.

The global wind energy potential (available over the world’s ocean surface and land at 100m assuming that all wind at speeds is utilized to power wind turbines) has been estimated at 1700 TW. About half of this wind energy (1700 TW) is found in areas that can be extracted feasibly and efficiently (Jacobson & Delucchi, 2011, p.1159).

Jacobson and Delucchi (2011) estimate that both solar and wind make up 90% of the future energy supply on the basis of their relative availability (p.1160). Solar PV is split into 70% power-plant and 30% rooftop on the basis of an assessment of the expected available rooftop area.

Rooftop PV has three main benefits: it does not need new land surface; it can be incorporated into a hybrid solar infrastructure that generate electricity, light and heat for onsite use; and it neither requires an electricity transmission nor distribution infrastructure. The authors suggests that approximately 90,000 solar power plants and about 4 million wind turbines are required to satisfy global energy demands (Jacobson & Delucchi, 2011, p.1160).

The material required for wind turbine energy include: carbon-filament reinforced plastic (for rotor blades); glass-fiber reinforced plastic (for rotor blades); wood epoxy (rotor blades); aluminum (for nacelles); magnetic materials (for gearboxes); pre-stressed concrete (for towers); and steel materials (for rotors, nacelles, towers, etc).

It is worth mentioning that most of these resources are available in abundance supply. For instance, the main components of concrete (i.e. limestone, sand, and gravel) are extensively available at lower costs and can be re-used (Jacobson & Delucchi, 2011, p.1161). On the other hand, the required resources for solar PVs include: copper indium sulfide/selenide; cadmium telluride; micro-crystalline silicon; polycrystalline silicon; and amorphous silicon.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that the power generated via silicon PV technologies is constrained by the limited availability of silver materials which are utilized as electrodes (Jacobson & Delucchi, 2011, p.1162). Nevertheless, given that most of resources required for the installation of renewable energy plants are in abundance supply, both wind and solar energy technologies provide low-cost, environmental-friendly and efficient energy options to meet global demand.

Fthenakis, V., Mason, J., & Zweibel, K. (2009). The technical, geographical, and economic feasibility of solar energy to supply the energy needs of the US. Energy Policy, 37, 387–399.

Jacobson, M., & Delucchi, M. (2011). Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructures, and materials. Energy Policy, 39, 1154-1169.

Jacobson, M., & Masters, G. (2001). Exploiting wind versus coal. Science, 293, 1438.

Figure 1: Power available in energy resource worldwide if the energy is used in conversion devises, in locations where the energy resource is high, in likely-developable locations, and in delivered electricity (for wind and solar energy)

Source: Jacobson & Delucchi (2011).

a Comprises of all wind speeds at 100m over ocean and land

b Locations over land or near the coast where the mean wind speed ≥7m/s at 80m and at 100m.

c Eliminating remote locations

d Assuming 160 W panels are used over latitudes, land, and ocean.

e Same as (d) but locations over land between 50S and 50N.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 30). Wind and Solar Energy as a Sources of Alternative Energy. https://ivypanda.com/essays/wind-and-solar-energy/

"Wind and Solar Energy as a Sources of Alternative Energy." IvyPanda , 30 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/wind-and-solar-energy/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Wind and Solar Energy as a Sources of Alternative Energy'. 30 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Wind and Solar Energy as a Sources of Alternative Energy." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/wind-and-solar-energy/.

1. IvyPanda . "Wind and Solar Energy as a Sources of Alternative Energy." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/wind-and-solar-energy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Wind and Solar Energy as a Sources of Alternative Energy." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/wind-and-solar-energy/.

• The rooftop garden project
• Rooftop Package Units, Economizers, Ventilation
• The factors contributing to similarities and differences found in the species composition between two IKMT's
• “Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad, 1876-1917” by Matthew Frye Jacobson
• Using Solar (PV) Energy to Generate Hydrogen Gas for Fuel Cells
• Solar Photovoltaic (PV)
• The Use of Reliable Sources Is Crucial for Journalism
• Renewable and Sustainable Energy in NYC
• Wind Energy: The Use of Wind Turbines
• Solar Energy in the United Arab Emirates
• The Electromagnetic Spectrum
• The Interference of Colors
• Color and polarized light
• Multiverse Hypothesis in Physics
• Alternate processing methods for xrays(radiography)

Report • April 3, 2024

A Decade of Growth in Solar and Wind Power: Trends Across the U.S.

See the full report

America’s capacity to generate carbon-free electricity grew during 2023 — part of a decade-long growth trend for renewable energy. Solar and wind account for more of our nation’s energy mix than ever before.

To study America’s growing renewable electricity capacity and generation, Climate Central analyzed historical data on solar and wind energy over a 10-year period (2014 to 2023).

The analysis shows that the amount of electricity produced from solar and wind power increased across the U.S. Our nation generated 238,121 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity from solar in 2023 — more than eight times the amount generated a decade earlier in 2014. Wind power has more than doubled this decade, with 425,325 GWh coming from wind installations across the country in 2023. Together, these two renewable energy sources generated enough electricity in 2023 to power the equivalent of more than 61 million average American homes .

The most solar power generation came from California (68,816 GWh) and Texas (31,739 GWh) in 2023. Texas also led the country in power generated from wind (119,836 GWh).

These data — combined with federal capacity forecasts — show how renewable energy growth is driving America’s progress toward net-zero carbon emissions targets in the U.S.

This report and supplementary data show:

How much solar and wind power increased from 2022 to 2023

Growth trends in solar and wind power over the past decade (2014-2023)

Which states are the biggest producers of solar and wind energy

Download the data See the full report

Related Climate Matters briefs including state-level graphics:

A Decade of Solar Growth

Introduction Solar Solar-powered States in 2023 A Decade of Solar Growth Across the U.S., 2014-2023 Wind Wind-powered States in 2023 A Decade of Wind Growth Across the U.S., 2014-2023 Clean Energy Growth Relative to U.S. Climate Targets Methodology

Introduction #

Renewable energy from solar panels and wind turbines is increasingly important in the United States, as costs for these technologies continue to rapidly decline . As the power grid grows to meet increasing electricity demand in the coming decades, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that most of the nation’s new energy capacity will come from renewables like solar and wind – shifting the energy mix away from fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. 

Low-carbon renewable energy sources such as solar and wind provide electricity without producing heat-trapping gases or other air pollutants. Renewable energy projects create jobs , support local economies , and help meet U.S. commitments to reduce carbon pollution.

Solar and wind are the fastest-growing renewable energy sources in the U.S. In 2019, wind generation surpassed the amount of electricity generated from hydropower — a longtime leader in renewable energy. In 2022, solar overtook hydropower for the first time. Solar and wind energy will lead the growth in U.S. power generation for at least the next two years, according to EIA estimates.

This report uses data from the EIA to analyze solar and wind capacity and generation over the past decade (2014 to 2023) in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Recent data are compared across states and against historical figures to show which states have led growth in solar and wind energy.

The key terms in this report — capacity and generation — gauge renewable energy in the U.S. 

Capacity reflects the number and size of operational solar and wind installations. Renewable energy in the U.S. comes from both large utility-scale power plants and small-scale installations (which have less than 1 megawatt of capacity). 

Generation reflects how much electricity is produced by those installations, which depends on the weather and number of daily sunlight hours. See Box 1. Key Terms for more details.

Together, capacity and generation data provide insight into renewable energy growth, by showing the new capacity that comes online each year as well as the amount of electricity generated with new installations.

Download datasets with all variables included in this report.

Box 1. Key Terms

Capacity: measure of the maximum rate at which electricity can be generated by equipment on the ground, reported here in megawatts (MW) for state totals and gigawatts (GW) (equal to 1,000 MW) for national totals.

Generation : the amount of electricity produced over a period of time, reported here in gigawatt-hours (GWh) (equal to 1,000 megawatt-hours). For reference, the average American household consumed 10.8 MWh of electricity in 2022.

Small-scale installations: power operations with less than 1 MW of capacity, usually located onsite or near where the electricity is used (e.g., residential rooftop solar panels or community solar projects). Note: The only small-scale installations discussed in this report are for solar power.

Utility-scale installations : power plants with at least 1 MW of capacity.

Learn more about U.S. electricity capacity and generation from the U.S. Energy Information Administration .

National Solar Power in 2023

By the end of 2023, the U.S. had an estimated total capacity of 139 gigawatts from utility- and small-scale solar installations — an increase of more than 26 GW or 23% from 2022.

During 2023, the U.S. produced an estimated 238,121 GWh of electricity from utility- and small-scale solar installations combined. This is an increase of 33,042 GWh or 16% compared to 2022.

Figure 1: National solar electricity generation (GWh) in 2023 by state

Box 4. Growing Role of Small-scale Solar

The EIA considers a solar installation to be “small-scale” if it has less than 1 MW of capacity. Most residential or commercial rooftop solar installations are small-scale, along with most community solar projects (those that provide electricity to multiple residents or businesses in an area).

Small-scale solar installations account for an estimated 48 GW (around 34%) of all solar capacity in the U.S. at the end of 2023. Nearly 8 GW of new small-scale solar capacity was brought online in 2023, representing a record 20% increase compared to 2022.

During the past decade, small-scale solar capacity and generation have grown steadily, but at a slower pace than utility-scale. Small-scale capacity in 2023 was more than six times the amount compared to 2014; utility-scale saw an eight-fold increase. The EIA estimates that small-scale solar capacity could grow to 55 GW by the end of 2024.

Small-scale solar produced an estimated 73,619 GWh or about 31% of all solar generation in 2023 — compared to 164,502 GWh generated by utility-scale installations.

California generated the most electricity from small-scale operations (28,102 GWh) in 2023, which accounts for around 41% of the state's total solar electricity generation for the year. On the East Coast, New York generated the most electricity from small-scale solar in 2023 (3,973 GWh) — accounting for nearly 62% of electricity generated from solar that year in the state. In the middle of the country, wind is typically a bigger source of electricity than solar; however, Illinois was the 10th highest small-scale solar generating state in 2023, with 1,536 GWh of electricity from small-scale operations — accounting for 44% of the state’s solar electricity.

Box 2. Solar Power in the National Electricity Mix

Utility-scale solar accounts for around 8% of the nation’s capacity from all utility-scale electricity sources (including renewables, nuclear, [1] and fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas). In 2023, nearly 4% of electricity in the U.S. was produced by utility-scale solar. A decade earlier in 2014, it accounted for less than 0.5% of the total electricity generated.

California and Nevada are among the states for which utility-scale solar comprises a significant portion of the current electricity mix. In 2023, utility-scale solar contributed 19% (40,714 GWh) of electricity in California and 23% (9,733 GWh) of the electricity in Nevada.

Nevada’s capacity for solar power is projected to increase during 2024, as the Gemini solar facility is scheduled to come online. The facility will add a planned 690 MW of solar capacity and 380 MW of battery storage – which is one way solar power facilities can capture and store some energy to meet evening electricity demand. It’s expected to be the largest solar energy project in the U.S. once fully operational.

Note: These data reflect total utility-scale energy sources only and exclude small-scale solar.

Box 3. Real Stories: Solar Powered Job Boom in Nevada

Solar energy projects are bringing jobs and skills training to Nevada. Climate Central's Partnership Journalism program collaborated with the Mountain West News Bureau to investigate how Nevada is leading the way for renewable energy workforce development.

Read the full story .

Solar-powered States in 2023 #

The states with the most solar capacity in 2023 (combined utility- and small-scale) were California, with 36,461 MW, Texas (18,476 MW), Florida (10,352 MW), North Carolina (7,150 MW), and Arizona (5,848 MW).

These same five states also generated the most electricity from solar power (utility- and small-scale combined) in 2023 ( Figure 1 ): California (68,816 GWh); Texas (31,739 GWh); Florida (17,809 GWh); North Carolina (12,085 GWh); and Arizona (11,778 GWh).

Texas led the nation in growth from 2022 to 2023 for both solar capacity and generation ( Table 1 ). Texas added 4,996 MW of capacity (37% annual increase) and generated 6,302 GWh more than the previous year (25% annual increase).

California followed with an addition of 4,714 MW of solar capacity — a 15% increase from 2022. The state produced 5,906 GWh more (9% increase) than the year before.

Table 1. Top states for utility- and small-scale solar (combined) capacity and generation in 2023. Find data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia in the full dataset.

A decade of solar growth across the us 2014-2023 #.

The U.S. added more than 121 GW of utility- and small-scale solar capacity in total during the last decade — an increase of around 688% ( Figure 2 ). This means there was nearly eight times more solar capacity in 2023 than in 2014.

The amount of electricity produced from solar increased at a similar rate. In 2023, the U.S. generated over eight times more electricity from solar energy than in 2014 — an increase of more than 209,197 GWh or 723%.

The states with the most significant growth in solar capacity over the last 10 years include: California, which added 27,864 MW from 2014 to 2023; Texas (18,179 MW); Florida (10,203 MW); North Carolina (6,416 MW); and Nevada (4,313 MW).

These five states saw the most growth in generation, too ( Table 2 ). Present-day data on solar capacity and generation reflect these strong historical growth trends, as these states were among the highest solar-generating states in 2023.

Figure 2: National solar capacity (GW) by year (2014-2023)

Table 2. top states for growth in solar (utility- and small-scale combined) capacity and generation from 2014 to 2023. find data for all 50 states and the district of columbia in the full dataset., box 5. weatherpower: connecting weather to local solar and wind power.

Solar and wind installations produce energy daily, year-round. Seasonal weather plays an important role. The amount of electricity generated is influenced, in part, by when the sun shines or the wind blows.

Solar generation in the U.S. peaks in the summer, when days are long and the sun’s rays strike the Northern Hemisphere more directly. In 2023, solar electricity produced from utility- and small-scale installations (combined) peaked ( Figure 3 ) in July (26,626 GWh) and August (25,372 GWh).

Wind energy generation is typically highest during the spring. In 2023, the most wind energy was produced across the U.S. in March (44,580 GWh) and April (43,072 GWh) ( Figure 4 ).

Figure 3: Monthly solar generation (GWh) in the U.S. in 2023. During 2023, U.S. solar electricity generation peaked in July (26,626 GWh).

Figure 4: Monthly wind generation (GWh) in the U.S. in 2023. During 2023, U.S. wind generation peaked in March (44,580 GWh).

Climate Central’s WeatherPower ™ tool produces daily estimates and forecasts of local solar and wind generation across the continental U.S. Daily forecasts from WeatherPower reflect the influence of weather on local solar and wind generation. WeatherPower data provide a snapshot of solar and wind energy across the U.S., at local scales, on any given day. It can be used to generate figures relevant to any state, media market, county, or congressional district in the continental U.S.

This WeatherPower graphic shows estimates and forecasts for solar generation in North Carolina in March 2024.

National Wind Power in 2023

By the end of 2023, the U.S. had an estimated total capacity of 148 GW from utility-scale onshore and offshore wind installations — an increase of 6 GW or 4% from 2022. 

During 2023, the U.S. produced an estimated 425,235 GWh of electricity from utility-scale wind installations. This represents a slight drop of 9,062 GWh or 2% compared to 2022 due to lower average wind speeds , mostly in the Midwest. 

Figure 5: National wind electricity generation (GWh) in 2023 by state

Box. 7 offshore wind growth in the u.s..

Most wind energy in the U.S. is produced onshore, in the middle of the country. However coastal states can take advantage of offshore winds to generate electricity. Offshore wind currently makes up a small portion of the national electricity mix, but it has the potential to grow substantially in the coming decades.

In 2023, only two states (Rhode Island and Virginia) had operational offshore wind facilities, which contributed 42 MW to the total national wind capacity (148 GW). Offshore wind capacity has already grown early in 2024. Vineyard Wind, a wind installation off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, began operating in February 2024 with 68 MW of capacity . This facility will have 800 MW of capacity when fully operational, which could happen as soon as late 2024. In March 2024, South Fork Wind Farm off the coasts of New York and Rhode Island began operating with around 130 MW of capacity — making it the country’s largest operational offshore wind installation.

Rising costs have challenged the economic viability of offshore wind installations, delaying some projects. Financial incentives such as those in the Inflation Reduction Act could ease some of the economic burden. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, state policies are poised to support development of nearly 43 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040 . Offshore wind projects across more than a dozen coastal states are in various stages of approval or construction.

Learn more about offshore wind in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Offshore Wind Market Report: 2023 Edition

Box 6. Wind Power in the National Electricity Mix

Wind accounts for around 12% of the nation’s capacity from all utility-scale electricity sources (including renewables and fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas).

In 2023, around 10% of electricity in the U.S. was produced by wind. A decade earlier in 2014, wind accounted for 4% of the total electricity generated.

The EIA forecasts that electricity generation from wind will grow by 6% in 2024, while coal and natural gas will continue to decline.

For Iowa and South Dakota, wind comprises more than half of the current electricity mix. In 2023, wind generated almost 60% (41,869 GWh) of electricity in Iowa and about 55% (9,389 GWh) in South Dakota.

Although Texas leads the way in wind power — generating almost three times more than the next biggest wind energy-producing state — electricity generated from wind made up a more modest 22% of the Texas’ electricity mix in 2023.

Wind-powered States in 2023 #

The states with the most wind capacity in 2023 were Texas, with 40,652 MW; Iowa (12,803 MW); Oklahoma (12,245 MW); Kansas (9,043 MW); and Illinois (7,874 MW).

These same five states also generated the most electricity from wind power in 2023: Texas (119,836 GWh); Iowa (41,869 GWh); Oklahoma (37,731 GWh); Kansas (27,462 GWh); and Illinois (22,054 GWh) ( Figure 5 ).

Texas led the nation in absolute growth from 2022 to 2023 for both wind capacity and generation ( Table 3 ). Texas added 1,309 MW of capacity (3% annual increase) and generated 5,049 GWh more than the previous year (4% annual increase).

Arizona and New York standout for their relative growth in wind capacity from 2022 to 2023. Arizona’s capacity increased by 39% (238 MW added), and New York’s by 25% (557 MW added).

Table 3. Top states for utility-scale wind capacity and generation in 2023. Find data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia in the full dataset.

A decade of wind growth across the us 2014-2023 #.

The U.S. added more than 83 GW of wind capacity during the last decade — an increase of around 130%. This means that wind capacity more than doubled from 2014 to 2023 ( Figure 6 ).

The amount of electricity produced from wind increased at a similar rate. In 2023, the U.S. generated more than twice as much electricity from wind energy than in 2014 — an increase of 243,580 GWh or 134%.

The states with the most significant growth in wind capacity during this decade include: Texas, which added 26,658 MW from 2014 to 2023; Oklahoma (8,466 MW); Iowa (7,241 MW); Kansas (6,074 MW); and Illinois (4,347 MW).

Four out of these five states saw the most growth in generation, too ( Table 4 ). Present-day wind generation reflects these strong historical growth trends, as there is overlap with the highest wind-generating states in 2023.

Figure 6: National wind capacity (GW) by year (2014-2023)

Table 4. Top states for growth in utility-scale wind capacity and generation from 2014 to 2023. Find data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia in the full dataset.

Clean Energy Growth Relative to US Climate Targets #

The U.S. is among nearly 200 countries that joined the Paris Agreement to limit warming. As part of its commitment, the U.S. has set the following goals :

By 2030: reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 50-52% below 2005 levels 

By 2035: reaching 100% carbon pollution-free electricity

By 2050: achieving a net-zero emissions economy

Recent landmark laws are fostering renewable energy growth and moving the U.S. toward its climate goals. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) contains hundreds of billions of dollars to boost clean energy and cut emissions. The IRA includes provisions such as tax credits, grants, and other financial incentives for renewable energy projects from the utility-scale to individual households.

The Rapid Energy Policy Evaluation and Analysis Toolkit (REPEAT) , a project led by Princeton University scientists, estimates the potential impact of these policies, and tracks progress towards U.S. climate targets. By 2030, REPEAT estimates U.S. net annual emissions could be as low as 4.0 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (Gt CO2e ), compared to 6.6 Gt CO2e in 2005: a reduction of around 40% compared to 2005 levels. Although this represents significant progress, the U.S. would still fall short of its 2030 target (50% below 2005 levels) ( Figure 7 ). Solar and wind energy are key to reducing emissions and reaching 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035. If current policies are taken advantage of, a boom in solar and wind energy capacity is expected based on REPEAT analysis. By 2035, solar and wind could make up a majority (more than 50%) of state energy capacity in 46 of the 48 contiguous states ( Figure 8 ). In 12 states, wind and solar could make up over 80% of electricity capacity by 2035 by utilizing current policies. And New Mexico, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming could have over 90% of their electricity capacity from wind and solar by 2035.

Explore more data: State Solar and Wind Boom to Bring U.S. Toward Climate Targets  

Figure 7. Measured and modeled net annual U.S. emissions (Gt CO2e). U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have decreased from 2005 to 2020, but even in the most optimistic scenario based on current policies, the U.S. is projected to progress toward, but fall short of, its 2030 target.

Figure 8. Projected solar and wind proportion of electricity capacity under current (optimistic) policy scenarios. Solar and wind (combined) are expected to make up a majority of electricity capacity in most U.S. states by 2035 under optimistic current policy scenarios.

Methodology #.

All national and state-level data come from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Utility-scale solar and wind summer capacity values for 2014-2022 are as reported in EIA’s Historical State Data for each year. For 2023, utility-scale solar and wind summer capacity values are for December 2023 as reported in EIA’s Electric Power Monthly . Small-scale solar capacity for 2014-2022 are for December of each year, as reported in form EIA-861M . All generation values (wind, utility- and small-scale solar) for 2014-2022 come from EIA’s electricity data browser .

To calculate the portion of total capacity and electricity generation contributed by solar and wind (as a percentage), we compared electricity capacity/generation for utility-scale solar and wind to all fuel sources and all energy sectors at the utility-scale level, which includes: renewable sources; nuclear; and fossil fuels such as natural gas, oil, and coal. Solar and wind 10-year growth is a direct comparison between capacity/generation in 2014 and 2023.

Climate Central is an independent group of scientists and communicators who research and report the facts about our changing climate and how it affects people’s lives.

Climate Central is a policy-neutral 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

A problem built into our relationship with energy itself. Photo by Ferdinando Scianna/Magnum

Deep warming

Even if we ‘solve’ global warming, we face an older, slower problem. waste heat could radically alter earth’s future.

by Mark Buchanan   + BIO

The world will be transformed. By 2050, we will be driving electric cars and flying in aircraft running on synthetic fuels produced through solar and wind energy. New energy-efficient technologies, most likely harnessing artificial intelligence, will dominate nearly all human activities from farming to heavy industry. The fossil fuel industry will be in the final stages of a terminal decline. Nuclear fusion and other new energy sources may have become widespread. Perhaps our planet will even be orbited by massive solar arrays capturing cosmic energy from sunlight and generating seemingly endless energy for all our needs.

That is one possible future for humanity. It’s an optimistic view of how radical changes to energy production might help us slow or avoid the worst outcomes of global warming. In a report from 1965, scientists from the US government warned that our ongoing use of fossil fuels would cause global warming with potentially disastrous consequences for Earth’s climate. The report, one of the first government-produced documents to predict a major crisis caused by humanity’s large-scale activities, noted that the likely consequences would include higher global temperatures, the melting of the ice caps and rising sea levels. ‘Through his worldwide industrial civilisation,’ the report concluded, ‘Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment’ – an experiment with a highly uncertain outcome, but clear and important risks for life on Earth.

Since then, we’ve dithered and doubted and argued about what to do, but still have not managed to take serious action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which continue to rise. Governments around the planet have promised to phase out emissions in the coming decades and transition to ‘green energy’. But global temperatures may be rising faster than we expected: some climate scientists worry that rapid rises could create new problems and positive feedback loops that may accelerate climate destabilisation and make parts of the world uninhabitable long before a hoped-for transition is possible.

Despite this bleak vision of the future, there are reasons for optimists to hope due to progress on cleaner sources of renewable energy, especially solar power. Around 2010, solar energy generation accounted for less than 1 per cent of the electricity generated by humanity. But experts believe that, by 2027, due to falling costs, better technology and exponential growth in new installations, solar power will become the largest global energy source for producing electricity. If progress on renewables continues, we might find a way to resolve the warming problem linked to greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, large-scale societal and ecological changes might have helped us avoid the worst consequences of our extensive use of fossil fuels.

It’s a momentous challenge. And it won’t be easy. But this story of transformation only hints at the true depth of the future problems humanity will confront in managing our energy use and its influence over our climate.

As scientists are gradually learning, even if we solve the immediate warming problem linked to the greenhouse effect, there’s another warming problem steadily growing beneath it. Let’s call it the ‘deep warming’ problem. This deeper problem also raises Earth’s surface temperature but, unlike global warming, it has nothing to do with greenhouse gases and our use of fossil fuels. It stems directly from our use of energy in all forms and our tendency to use more energy over time – a problem created by the inevitable waste heat that is generated whenever we use energy to do something. Yes, the world may well be transformed by 2050. Carbon dioxide levels may stabilise or fall thanks to advanced AI-assisted technologies that run on energy harvested from the sun and wind. And the fossil fuel industry may be taking its last breaths. But we will still face a deeper problem. That’s because ‘deep warming’ is not created by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It’s a problem built into our relationship with energy itself.

F inding new ways to harness more energy has been a constant theme of human development. The evolution of humanity – from early modes of hunter-gathering to farming and industry – has involved large systematic increases in our per-capita energy use. The British historian and archaeologist Ian Morris estimates, in his book Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels: How Human Values Evolve (2015), that early human hunter-gatherers, living more than 10,000 years ago, ‘captured’ around 5,000 kcal per person per day by consuming food, burning fuel, making clothing, building shelter, or through other activities. Later, after we turned to farming and enlisted the energies of domesticated animals, we were able to harness as much as 30,000 kcal per day. In the late 17th century , the exploitation of coal and steam power marked another leap: by 1970, the use of fossil fuels allowed humans to consume some 230,000 kcal per person per day. (When we think about humanity writ large as ‘humans’, it’s important to acknowledge that the average person in the wealthiest nations consumes up to 100 times more energy than the average person in the poorest nations.) As the global population has risen and people have invented new energy-dependent technologies, our global energy use has continued to climb.

In many respects, this is great. We can now do more with less effort and achieve things that were unimaginable to the 17th-century inventors of steam engines, let alone to our hominin ancestors. We’ve made powerful mining machines, superfast trains, lasers for use in telecommunications and brain-imaging equipment. But these creations, while helping us, are also subtly heating the planet.

All the energy we humans use – to heat our homes, run our factories, propel our automobiles and aircraft, or to run our electronics – eventually ends up as heat in the environment. In the shorter term, most of the energy we use flows directly into the environment. It gets there through hot exhaust gases, friction between tires and roads, the noises generated by powerful engines, which spread out, dissipate, and eventually end up as heat. However, a small portion of the energy we use gets stored in physical changes, such as in new steel, plastic or concrete. It’s stored in our cities and technologies. In the longer term, as these materials break down, the energy stored inside also finds its way into the environment as heat. This is a direct consequence of the well-tested principles of thermodynamics.

Waste heat will pose a problem that is every bit as serious as global warming from greenhouse gases

In the early decades of the 21st century , this heat created by simply using energy, known as ‘waste heat’, is not so serious. It’s equivalent to roughly 2 per cent of the planetary heating imbalance caused by greenhouse gases – for now. But, with the passing of time, the problem is likely to get much more serious. That’s because humans have a historical tendency to consistently discover and produce things, creating entirely new technologies and industries in the process: domesticated animals for farming; railways and automobiles; global air travel and shipping; personal computers, the internet and mobile phones. The result of such activities is that we end up using more and more energy, despite improved energy efficiency in nearly every area of technology.

During the past two centuries at least (and likely for much longer), our yearly energy use has doubled roughly every 30 to 50 years . Our energy use seems to be growing exponentially, a trend that shows every sign of continuing. We keep finding new things to do and almost everything we invent requires more and more energy: consider the enormous energy demands of cryptocurrency mining or the accelerating energy requirements of AI.

If this historical trend continues, scientists estimate waste heat will pose a problem in roughly 150-200 years that is every bit as serious as the current problem of global warming from greenhouse gases. However, deep heating will be more pernicious as we won’t be able to avoid it by merely shifting from one kind energy to another. A profound problem will loom before us: can we set strict limits on all the energy we use? Can we reign in the seemingly inexorable expansion of our activities to avoid destroying our own environment?

Deep warming is a problem hiding beneath global warming, but one that will become prominent if and when we manage to solve the more pressing issue of greenhouse gases. It remains just out of sight, which might explain why scientists only became concerned about the ‘waste heat’ problem around 15 years ago.

O ne of the first people to describe the problem is the Harvard astrophysicist Eric Chaisson, who discussed the issue of waste heat in a paper titled ‘Long-Term Global Heating from Energy Usage’ (2008). He concluded that our technological society may be facing a fundamental limit to growth due to ‘unavoidable global heating … dictated solely by the second law of thermodynamics, a biogeophysical effect often ignored when estimating future planetary warming scenarios’. When I emailed Chaisson to learn more, he told me the history of his thinking on the problem:

It was on a night flight, Paris-Boston [circa] 2006, after a UNESCO meeting on the environment when it dawned on me that the IPCC were overlooking something. While others on the plane slept, I crunched some numbers literally on the back of an envelope … and then hoped I was wrong, that is, hoped that I was incorrect in thinking that the very act of using energy heats the air, however slightly now.

The transformation of energy into heat is among the most ubiquitous processes of physics

Chaisson drafted the idea up as a paper and sent it to an academic journal. Two anonymous reviewers were eager for it to be published. ‘A third tried his damnedest to kill it,’ Chaisson said, the reviewer claiming the findings were ‘irrelevant and distracting’. After it was finally published, the paper got some traction when it was covered by a journalist and ran as a feature story on the front page of The Boston Globe . The numbers Chaisson crunched, predictions of our mounting waste heat, were even run on a supercomputer at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, by Mark Flanner, a professor of earth system science. Flanner, Chaisson suspected at the time, was likely ‘out to prove it wrong’. But, ‘after his machine crunched for many hours’, he saw the same results that Chaisson had written on the back of an envelope that night in the plane.

Around the same time, also in 2008, two engineers, Nick Cowern and Chihak Ahn, wrote a research paper entirely independent of Chaisson’s work, but with similar conclusions. This was how I first came across the problem. Cowern and Ahn’s study estimated the total amount of waste heat we’re currently releasing to the environment, and found that it is, right now, quite small. But, like Chaisson, they acknowledged that the problem would eventually become serious unless steps were taken to avoid it.

That’s some of the early history of thinking in this area. But these two papers, and a few other analyses since, point to the same unsettling conclusion: what I am calling ‘deep warming’ will be a big problem for humanity at some point in the not-too-distant future. The precise date is far from certain. It might be 150 years , or 400, or 800, but it’s in the relatively near future, not the distant future of, say, thousands or millions of years. This is our future.

T he transformation of energy into heat is among the most ubiquitous processes of physics. As cars drive down roads, trains roar along railways, planes cross the skies and industrial plants turn raw materials into refined products, energy gets turned into heat, which is the scientific word for energy stored in the disorganised motions of molecules at the microscopic level. As a plane flies from Paris to Boston, it burns fuel and thrusts hot gases into the air, generates lots of sound and stirs up contrails. These swirls of air give rise to swirls on smaller scales which in turn make smaller ones until the energy ultimately ends up lost in heat – the air is a little warmer than before, the molecules making it up moving about a little more vigorously. A similar process takes place when energy is used by the tiny electrical currents inside the microchips of computers, silently carrying out computations. Energy used always ends up as heat. Decades ago, research by the IBM physicist Rolf Landauer showed that a computation involving even a single computing bit will release a certain minimum amount of heat to the environment.

How this happens is described by the laws of thermodynamics, which were described in the mid-19th century by scientists including Sadi Carnot in France and Rudolf Clausius in Germany. Two key ‘laws’ summarise its main principles.

The first law of thermodynamics simply states that the total quantity of energy never changes but is conserved. Energy, in other words, never disappears, but only changes form. The energy initially stored in an aircraft’s fuel, for example, can be changed into the energetic motion of the plane. Turn on an electric heater, and energy initially held in electric currents gets turned into heat, which spreads into the air, walls and fabric of your house. The total energy remains the same, but it markedly changes form.

We’re generating waste heat all the time with everything we do

The second law of thermodynamics, equally important, is more subtle and states that, in natural processes, the transformation of energy always moves from more organised and useful forms to less organised and less useful forms. For an aircraft, the energy initially concentrated in jet fuel ends up dissipated in stirred-up winds, sounds and heat spread over vast areas of the atmosphere in a largely invisible way. It’s the same with the electric heater: the organised useful energy in the electric currents gets dissipated and spread into the low-grade warmth of the walls, then leaks into the outside air. Although the amount of energy remains the same, it gradually turns into less organised, less usable forms. The end point of the energy process produces waste heat. And we’re generating it all the time with everything we do.

Data on world energy consumption shows that, collectively, all humans on Earth are currently using about 170,000 terawatt-hours (TWh), which is a lot of energy in absolute terms – a terawatt-hour is the total energy consumed in one hour by any process using energy at a rate of 1 trillion watts. This huge number isn’t surprising, as it represents all the energy being used every day by the billions of cars and homes around the world, as well as by industry, farming, construction, air traffic and so on. But, in the early 21st century , the warming from this energy is still much less than the planetary heating due to greenhouse gases.

Concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO 2 and methane are quite small, and only make a fractional difference to how much of the Sun’s energy gets trapped in the atmosphere, rather than making it back out to space. Even so, this fractional difference has a huge effect because the stream of energy arriving from the Sun to Earth is so large. Current estimates of this greenhouse energy imbalance come to around 0.87 W per square meter, which translates into a total energy figure about 50 times larger than our waste heat. That’s reassuring. But as Cowern and Ahn wrote in their 2008 paper, things aren’t likely to stay this way over time because our energy usage keeps rising. Unless, that is, we can find some radical way to break the trend of using ever more energy.

O ne common objection to the idea of the deep warming is to claim that the problem won’t really arise. ‘Don’t worry,’ someone might say, ‘with efficient technology, we’re going to find ways to stop using more energy; though we’ll end up doing more things in the future, we’ll use less energy.’ This may sound plausible at first, because we are indeed getting more efficient at using energy in most areas of technology. Our cars, appliances and laptops are all doing more with less energy. If efficiency keeps improving, perhaps we can learn to run these things with almost no energy at all? Not likely, because there are limits to energy efficiency.

Over the past few decades, the efficiency of heating in homes – including oil and gas furnaces, and boilers used to heat water – has increased from less than 50 per cent to well above 90 per cent of what is theoretically possible. That’s good news, but there’s not much more efficiency to be realised in basic heating. The efficiency of lighting has also vastly improved, with modern LED lighting turning something like 70 per cent of the applied electrical energy into light. We will gain some efficiencies as older lighting gets completely replaced by LEDs, but there’s not a lot of room left for future efficiency improvements. Similar efficiency limits arise in the growing or cooking of food; in the manufacturing of cars, bikes and electronic devices; in transportation, as we’re taken from place to place; in the running of search engines, translation software, GPT-4 or other large-language models.

Even if we made significant improvements in the efficiencies of these technologies, we will only have bought a little time. These changes won’t delay by much the date when deep warming becomes a problem we must reckon with.

Optimising efficiencies is just a temporary reprieve, not a radical change in our human future

As a thought experiment, suppose we could immediately improve the energy efficiency of everything we do by a factor of 10 – a fantastically optimistic proposal. That is, imagine the energy output of humans on Earth has been reduced 10 times , from 170,000 TWh to 17,000 TWh . If our energy use keeps expanding, doubling every 30-50 years or so (as it has for centuries), then a 10-fold increase in waste heat will happen in just over three doubling times, which is about 130 years : 17,000 TWh doubles to 34,000 TWh , which doubles to 68,000 TWh , which doubles to 136,000 TWh , and so on. All those improvements in energy efficiency would quickly evaporate. The date when deep warming hits would recede by 130 years or so, but not much more. Optimising efficiencies is just a temporary reprieve, not a radical change in our human future.

Improvements in energy efficiency can also have an inverse effect on our overall energy use. It’s easy to think that if we make a technology more efficient, we’ll then use less energy through the technology. But economists are deeply aware of a paradoxical effect known as ‘rebound’, whereby improved energy efficiency, by making the use of a technology cheaper, actually leads to more widespread use of that technology – and more energy use too. The classic example, as noted by the British economist William Stanley Jevons in his book The Coal Question (1865), is the invention of the steam engine. This new technology could extract energy from burning coal more efficiently, but it also made possible so many new applications that the use of coal increased. A recent study by economists suggests that, across the economy, such rebound effects might easily swallow at least 50 per cent of any efficiency gains in energy use. Something similar has already happened with LED lights, for which people have found thousands of new uses.

If gains in efficiency won’t buy us lots of time, how about other factors, such as a reduction of the global population? Scientists generally believe that the current human population of more than 8 billion people is well beyond the limits of our finite planet, especially if a large fraction of this population aspires to the resource-intensive lifestyles of wealthy nations. Some estimates suggest that a more sustainable population might be more like 2 billion , which could reduce energy use significantly, potentially by a factor of three or four. However, this isn’t a real solution: again, as with the example of improved energy efficiency, a one-time reduction of our energy consumption by a factor of three will quickly be swallowed up by an inexorable rise in energy use. If Earth’s population were suddenly reduced to 2 billion – about a quarter of the current population – our energy gains would initially be enormous. But those gains would be erased in two doubling times, or roughly 60-100 years , as our energy demands would grow fourfold.

S o, why aren’t more people talking about this? The deep warming problem is starting to get more attention. It was recently mentioned on Twitter by the German climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf, who cautioned that nuclear fusion, despite excitement over recent advances, won’t arrive in time to save us from our waste heat, and might make the problem worse. By providing another cheap source of energy, fusion energy could accelerate both the growth of our energy use and the reckoning of deep warming. A student of Rahmstorf’s, Peter Steiglechner, wrote his master’s thesis on the problem in 2018. Recognition of deep warming and its long-term implications for humanity is spreading. But what can we do about the problem?

Avoiding or delaying deep warming will involve slowing the rise of our waste heat, which means restricting the amount of energy we use and also choosing energy sources that exacerbate the problem as little as possible. Unlike the energy from fossil fuels or nuclear power, which add to our waste energy burden, renewable energy sources intercept energy that is already on its way to Earth, rather than producing additional waste heat. In this sense, the deep warming problem is another reason to pursue renewable energy sources such as solar or wind rather than alternatives such as nuclear fusion, fission or even geothermal power. If we derive energy from any of these sources, we’re unleashing new flows of energy into the Earth system without making a compensating reduction. As a result, all such sources will add to the waste heat problem. However, if renewable sources of energy are deployed correctly, they need not add to our deposition of waste heat in the environment. By using this energy, we produce no more waste heat than would have been created by sunlight in the first place.

Take the example of wind energy. Sunlight first stirs winds into motion by heating parts of the planet unequally, causing vast cells of convection. As wind churns through the atmosphere, blows through trees and over mountains and waves, most of its energy gets turned into heat, ending up in the microscopic motions of molecules. If we harvest some of this wind energy through turbines, it will also be turned into heat in the form of stored energy. But, crucially, no more heat is generated than if there had been no turbines to capture the wind.

The same can hold true for solar energy. In an array of solar cells, if each cell only collects the sunlight falling on it – which would ordinarily have been absorbed by Earth’s surface – then the cells don’t alter how much waste heat gets produced as they generate energy. The light that would have warmed Earth’s surface instead goes into the solar cells, gets used by people for some purpose, and then later ends up as heat. In this way we reduce the amount of heat being absorbed by Earth by precisely the same amount as the energy we are extracting for human use. We are not adding to overall planetary heating. This keeps the waste energy burden unchanged, at least in the relatively near future, even if we go on extracting and using ever larger amounts of energy.

Covering deserts in dark panels would absorb a lot more energy than the desert floor

Chaisson summarised the problem quite clearly in 2008:

I’m now of the opinion … that any energy that’s dug up on Earth – including all fossil fuels of course, but also nuclear and ground-sourced geothermal – will inevitably produce waste heat as a byproduct of humankind’s use of energy. The only exception to that is energy arriving from beyond Earth, this is energy here and now and not dug up, namely the many solar energies (plural) caused by the Sun’s rays landing here daily … The need to avoid waste heat is indeed the single, strongest, scientific argument to embrace solar energies of all types.

But not just any method of gathering solar energy will avoid the deep warming problem. Doing so requires careful engineering. For example, covering deserts with solar panels would add to planetary heating because deserts reflect a lot of incident light back out to space, so it is never absorbed by Earth (and therefore doesn’t produce waste heat). Covering deserts in dark panels would absorb a lot more energy than the desert floor and would heat the planet further.

We’ll also face serious problems in the long run if our energy appetite keeps increasing. Futurists dream of technologies deployed in space where huge panels would absorb sunlight that would otherwise have passed by Earth and never entered our atmosphere. Ultimately, they believe, this energy could be beamed down to Earth. Like nuclear energy, such technologies would add an additional energy source to the planet without any compensating removal of heating from the sunlight currently striking our planet’s surface. Any effort to produce more energy than is normally available from sunlight at Earth’s surface will only make our heating problems worse.

D eep warming is simply a consequence of the laws of physics and our inquisitive nature. It seems to be in our nature to constantly learn and develop new things, changing our environment in the process. For thousands of years, we have harvested and exploited ever greater quantities of energy in this pursuit, and we appear poised to continue along this path with the rapidly expanding use of renewable energy sources – and perhaps even more novel sources such as nuclear fusion. But this path cannot proceed indefinitely without consequences.

The logic that more energy equals more warming sets up a profound dilemma for our future. The laws of physics and the habits ingrained in us from our long evolutionary history are steering us toward trouble. We may have a technological fix for greenhouse gas warming – just shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources – but there is no technical trick to get us out of the deep warming problem. That won’t stop some scientists from trying.

Perhaps, believing that humanity is incapable of reducing its energy usage, we’ll adopt a fantastic scheme to cool the planet, such as planetary-scale refrigeration or using artificially engineered tornadoes to transport heat from Earth’s surface to the upper atmosphere where it can be radiated away to space. As far-fetched as such approaches sound, scientists have given some serious thought to these and other equally bizarre ideas, which seem wholly in the realm of science fiction. They’re schemes that will likely make the problem worse not better.

We will need to transform the human story. It must become a story of doing less, not more

I see several possibilities for how we might ultimately respond. As with greenhouse gas warming, there will probably be an initial period of disbelief, denial and inaction, as we continue with unconstrained technological advance and growing energy use. Our planet will continue warming. Sooner or later, however, such warming will lead to serious disruptions of the Earth environment and its ecosystems. We won’t be able to ignore this for long, and it may provide a natural counterbalance to our energy use, as our technical and social capacity to generate and use ever more energy will be eroded. We may eventually come to some uncomfortable balance in which we just scrabble out a life on a hot, compromised planet because we lack the moral and organisational ability to restrict our energy use enough to maintain a sound environment.

An alternative would require a radical break with our past: using less energy. Finding a way to use less energy would represent a truly fundamental rupture with all of human history, something entirely novel. A rupture of this magnitude won’t come easily. However, if we could learn to view restrictions on our energy use as a non-negotiable element of life on Earth, we may still be able to do many of the things that make us essentially human: learning, discovering, inventing, creating. In this scenario, any helpful new technology that comes into use and begins using lots of energy would require a balancing reduction in energy use elsewhere. In such a way, we might go on with the future being perpetually new, and possibly better.

None of this is easily achieved and will likely mirror our current struggles to come to agreements on greenhouse gas heating. There will be vicious squabbles, arguments and profound polarisation, quite possibly major wars. Humanity will never have faced a challenge of this magnitude, and we won’t face up to it quickly or easily, I expect. But we must. Planetary heating is in our future – the very near future and further out as well. Many people will find this conclusion surprisingly hard to swallow, perhaps because it implies fundamental restrictions on our future here on Earth: we can’t go on forever using more and more energy, and, at the same time, expecting the planet’s climate to remain stable.

The world will likely be transformed by 2050. And, sometime after that, we will need to transform the human story. The narrative arc of humanity must become a tale of continuing innovation and learning, but also one of careful management. It must become a story, in energy terms, of doing less, not more. There’s no technology for entirely escaping waste heat, only techniques.

This is important to remember as we face up to the extremely urgent challenge of heating linked to fossil-fuel use and greenhouse gases. Global warming is just the beginning of our problems. It’s a testing ground to see if we can manage an intelligent and coordinated response. If we can handle this challenge, we might be better prepared, more capable and resilient as a species to tackle an even harder one.

Economic history

The southern gap

In the American South, an oligarchy of planters enriched itself through slavery. Pervasive underdevelopment is their legacy

Keri Leigh Merritt

Thinkers and theories

Our tools shape our selves

For Bernard Stiegler, a visionary philosopher of our digital age, technics is the defining feature of human experience

Bryan Norton

Family life

A patchwork family

After my marriage failed, I strove to create a new family – one made beautiful by the loving way it’s stitched together

The cell is not a factory

Scientific narratives project social hierarchies onto nature. That’s why we need better metaphors to describe cellular life

Charudatta Navare

The dangers of AI farming

AI could lead to new ways for people to abuse animals for financial gain. That’s why we need strong ethical guidelines

Virginie Simoneau-Gilbert & Jonathan Birch

War and peace

Legacy of the Scythians

How the ancient warrior people of the steppes have found themselves on the cultural frontlines of Russia’s war against Ukraine

Peter Mumford

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.6(8); 2022 Aug

A Closer Look at the Environmental Impact of Solar and Wind Energy

Jaime fernández torres.

1 Department of Thermal and Fluid Engineering, University Carlos III of Madrid, Avda. De la Universidad 30, Leganés, Madrid 28913 Spain

Fontina Petrakopoulou

Associated data.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Moving towards a sustainable society implies constant improvement in the way energy is supplied and consumed, with wider implementation of solar and wind energy facilities in stand‐alone or hybrid configurations. The goal of this work is to evaluate the lifecycle performance (construction and operation‐related impact) of large‐scale solar and wind energy systems and to compare it with conventional coal and natural gas fossil fuel plants under similar conditions. Environmental analyses of energy conversion systems today usually neglect the construction‐related environmental impact of fossil fuel plants, because it is significantly smaller than the impact related to the operation of the plant. However, the construction of large‐scale renewable plants implies the use of rare materials, transport‐related emissions, and other environmentally impactful activities. The plants evaluated here are configured and compared for similar emissions and similar power output. It is found that the life‐cycle environmental impact of the renewable plants could, in some specific cases, exceed that of the fossil fuel plants. Understanding the reasons behind this and the possible limitations of the different technologies can help plan for sustainable energy systems in the future. Finally, solutions to minimize the impact of renewable energy are proposed for more environmentally friendly implementation and future research.

This work presents a comparison of the lifecycle environmental impact of large‐scale renewable and fossil fuel plants under similar conditions. The analysis accounts for the construction, operation, and recycling of the plants. It is seen that renewable power plants may also result in significant impacts that should be minimized to ensure sustainable future applications.

1. Introduction

Transportation, electricity, heating, and cooling sectors are driven both by non‐renewable and renewable primary energy sources. [ 1 ] The main non‐renewable sources are coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy and represent more than 60% of today's global power generation. [ 2 ] According to the Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD), nearly half of the electricity produced in 2020, came from natural gas and coal‐fired power plants. [ 3 ]

Coal has the highest CO 2 emissions, followed by oil and gas. Although cheap and accessible, the use of coal is being limited because of its significant environmental impact that goes against sustainability and energy targets set for the next decades by countries worldwide. [ 4 , 5 ] Natural gas plants emit approximately one‐third of the greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted by conventional coal‐fired plants. [ 6 ] In 2018, 70% of the emissions in the power sector were released by coal‐fired power plants. This corresponded to approximately 29% of the global CO 2 emissions. Transportation, largely based on oil, was the second most polluting sector in 2018. [ 2 , 4 ] With regard to nuclear power, its low cost and greenhouse gas emissions make it an attractive energy source. However, the radioactive waste and the possibility of a nuclear accident hinder its wider adaptation. [ 5 ]

Among the main types of renewable energy sources (RES), hydropower, wind and solar energy are the most prominent. Hydroelectricity is very efficient and widely deployed, with the highest production share among all renewable technologies. [ 7 ] The great potential of wind and solar energy systems, however, is expected to increase the importance of these technologies in the future energy mix. [ 8 , 9 ] An overview of the state‐of‐the‐art of the main RES types and their basic characteristics can be found in Appendix A.

Today, there is a worldwide push towards the decarbonization of the power and transport sectors. The European Commission has set long‐term energy goals to be climate‐neutral in the next three decades. [ 10 ] By 2030, the share of renewables in the EU must be 32.5% and the GHG emissions must be decreased by 55%, compared to 1990 levels. Additionally, a 32.5% improvement in energy efficiency must be achieved by that time. [ 11 ]

To set correct goals for a sustainable energy sector, it is necessary to thoroughly study the construction‐ and operation‐related environmental impact of renewable and non‐renewable energy sources (NRES). A well‐defined comparative analysis between the total environmental impact of RES and NRES under similar conditions is still missing. The aim of this study is to critically compare the environmental performance of wind, solar, and fossil fuel plants, including all relevant life cycle stages. On the side of RES, the focus is on manufacturing, construction, and installation. Indirect impacts, like noise or animal disturbance, that intrinsically come with the deployment of renewable energy are not accounted for in this study. With NRES, on the other hand, the focus is mainly on the operation of the plant that is the primary source of emissions. [ 12 , 13 , 14 ] Previous studies present comparative analyses between different energy sources, specifically between wind, coal, nuclear, and hydropower. [ 15 , 16 , 17 ] These works mainly focus on the specific environmental contributions of each energy source, like global warming, acidification, eutrophication, etc. and focus on the most polluting stages over the life cycle of the different power plants. The novelty of this work relies on the comparison of RES and NRES under similar conditions and accounting for all stages of their life cycle. Specifically, the plants evaluated are configured and compared under two different scenarios: the scenario of similar emissions and the scenario of similar power output. The first case involves the study of the power generation of the plants if they had the same overall environmental impact throughout their lifetime. The second case involves the evaluation of the impact of the plants if they generated the same power output throughout their lifetime.

2. Life Cycle Assessment of Power Plants Based on Renewable Energy Sources

The evaluation of the environmental impact of solar and wind power plants is based on a wide range of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies. The comparison between RES and NRES power plants with numerical data is realized with studies using the same impact assessment methods and categories of environmental impacts. The chosen studies may focus on different parts of the lifecycle of the power plants. For example, they may present the overall lifecycle of the power plants, that is, from material extraction to decommissioning, or only the impact of certain life cycle stages, such as manufacturing.

2.1. Wind Energy

Several LCA studies of wind farms present data on capacity, dimensions of the turbines, type of generators, and location characteristics. The power output of onshore wind farm applications is commonly between 50 and 100 MW, [ 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ] while in offshore applications, [ 18 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ] the capacities are usually between 300 to 500 MW. Most of the studies included here have been carried out in Europe and some in China and the US.

The contributions of manufacturing, installation, and operation stages of onshore applications to the overall impact are approximately 75%, 15%, and 10%, respectively. The same stages in offshore applications contribute 65%, 25%, and 10%, respectively, to the total environmental impact of a wind facility. [ 17 , 18 ] Production processes that involve steel, iron, copper, and composite materials for the tower, nacelle, and rotor, along with the high fuel consumption of the vessels needed for the installation of offshore wind turbines, are responsible for most environmental impact. [ 18 , 19 ] Steel and cast iron used for the components of the turbine, strongly contribute to the acidification potential (AP) and the global warming potential (GWP) due to the generation of emissions like sulfur, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide. However, significant impacts are related to the categories of eutrophication potential (EP) and human toxicity potential (HTP) from air and water emissions linked to the use of arsenic, zinc, chromium, and nickel in the production of steel and copper. [ 20 , 21 ] Moreover, the emissions during the manufacturing of polymers used in the blades contribute to the ecotoxicity of freshwater significantly. [ 22 ] The photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) is particularly affected by emissions of butane, ethane, carbon monoxide, and chlorofluorocarbons during the production of steel, copper, aluminum, and the resins used in the rotor blades. [ 18 , 23 ] For onshore wind farms, the tower, the nacelle, and the rotor represent on average 30%, 27%, and 15% of the calculated GWP, respectively, [ 19 ] whereas the remaining 28% is linked to the concrete foundations, transformers, and the cabling system. In offshore applications, 35% of the GWP stems from the manufacturing of the monopile foundation, followed by the main components of the wind turbine generators (WTG) and the submarine cables. [ 18 , 26 ] The GWP of an offshore wind plant reaches, in the best case, the value of 8 g CO 2eq /kWh. [ 18 ] In onshore installations, on the other hand, this value could decrease to 5 g CO 2eq /kWh. [ 20 ] The main reason for this difference is the greater demand for metals in offshore turbines and their foundations.

Another important factor that influences the impact of wind applications is the generator used. Normally, excited‐synchronous generators have a higher impact, when compared to doubly‐fed induction and permanent magnet‐synchronous technologies, due to their larger weight. [ 24 ] The first type represents the heaviest option because they are made with large amounts of copper, followed by doubly‐fed induction and permanent magnet‐synchronous generators. The latter is mainly made of iron instead of copper which leads to a weight reduction of the nacelle of approximately 80%. The low weight of this technology implies less material and hence, less demanding production and generated pollutants. [ 22 ]

The recycling of the involved metals leads to an average reduction in all impact categories of 30%. [ 20 , 21 ] The higher the recycling rates of the different materials, the best the reported environmental results are. [ 15 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 29 ] High recycling rates usually refer to a recovery of metal components at percentages higher than 90%. Polymer materials used in the blades are recycled at percentages close to 33%, with the remaining 66% sent to landfills.

2.2. Solar PV

LCA studies show that, on average, more than 80% of the environmental impact of solar PV is due to the production process of the included modules. Most works [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ] focus on the manufacturing of different crystalline modules and explain the impacts of this stage, while other studies evaluate the life cycle impacts of rooftop PV systems [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] and utility‐scale power plants. [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ] In general, the results are strongly affected by six parameters: power generation, cell type, efficiency, solar irradiation, lifetime, and electricity mix. [ 30 ] The manufacturing process of crystalline silicon modules requires a large energy input due to the intensive purification of silicon and wafer processing, especially in the case of monocrystalline silicon (m‐Si) cells. [ 34 ] Hence, the environmental impact of the process depends strongly on the electricity mix considered in each study. Relevant studies used here are carried out in China, where the share of coal‐based electricity is approximately 60%. [ 16 ] For example, the work of Y. Fu et al. [ 32 ] reports that 45% to 80% of the total impact in the production process of a single polycrystalline silicon (p‐Si) module is due to the coal‐based electricity used. The remaining impact is linked to the aluminum frame and the manufacturing of the polymer layers that have high emissions of NO 3 , PO 3 , and SO 2 . Additionally, the emissions of strong solvents during the crystallization process result in a significant acidification impact. For instance, a 1.8 MW PV facility in Italy, with imported modules from China results in a GWP of 88.7 g CO 2eq /kWh. [ 47 ] As a comparison, a 5 MW solar plant in France, with European PV modules has a GWP of 37.5 g CO 2eq /kWh. [ 48 ] This is also observed in the work of L. Stamford and A. Azapagic, [ 40 ] where two identical solar roofs of 3 kWp, one manufactured in Germany and another in China, were compared. Specifically, they showed that by changing to a European electricity mix, the GHG emissions of m‐Si and p‐Si modules decreased by 17.6% and 13%, respectively.

The production of the auxiliary systems of a PV plant also results in some environmental impacts. For instance, the work of A. Rashedi and T. Khanam [ 36 ] shows that in the construction of a 1 kWp p‐Si rooftop PV system, nearly 35% of HTP is due to the manufacturing of the inverter. Moreover, the manufacturing process of the supporting structure is also important because it is commonly made of aluminum or steel. Emissions from the manufacturing of such metals increase the environmental impact categories of GWP, HTP, and APs. [ 48 ] They also showed that if the modules of their PV system were made of cadmium telluride cells instead of p‐Si, the HTP would be somewhat higher, due to the toxicity of cadmium. Nevertheless, the relatively simple manufacturing and low demand for energy and materials of cadmium telluride, make it the technology with the lowest environmental impact among the different types of solar cells. [ 35 , 36 ]

The power output of the modules increases with their efficiency. Larger renewable facilities are consequently also related to relatively lower GHG emissions. The work of A. Hamizah Mohd Nordin [ 34 ] showed that increasing the capacity of a 3kWp m‐Si module to 12 kWp somewhat lowers the GWP from 70 g CO 2eq /kWh to 65 g CO 2eq /kWh. Additionally, when the assumed lifetime was changed from 20 to 30 years, the emissions were reduced by 31%, because more renewable power was generated overall. Higher solar irradiation is another impactful factor because it results in more generated power. F. Murphy and K. McDonnell [ 38 ] calculated that an increase in the irradiation from 963 to 1700 kWh m −2 would decrease the GWP of a 3 kWp m‐Si system from 69.6 g CO 2eq /kWh to 45 g CO 2eq /kWh.

Finally, recycling can play an important role in the overall environmental analysis of PV plants. From the main materials that make up a solar module, glass, copper, aluminum, silver, and silicon are recycled at an average rate of 85%. Recycling involves remelting and chemical and thermal treatments. Compared to landfill disposal, recycling of crystalline silicon technologies is reported to lower the GWP by 35%. [ 33 ]

2.3. Concentrating Solar Power

LCA studies on concentrating solar power (CSP) [ 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ] show that typical solar power tower (SPT) and parabolic trough collector (PTC) plants result in emissions between 20 to 25 g CO 2eq /kWh. Most environmental impacts of this kind of solar plants are seen to stem equally from the manufacturing and operational stages. The manufacturing phase of a solar‐thermal plant includes the production of the collectors, the heat transfer fluid (HTF), the power block, the necessary pipes, wiring, foundations, etc. [ 51 ] Materials used include steel, concrete, aluminum, copper, and iron glass used for the mirrors, as well as molten salts and thermal oils. [ 51 ] In SPT plants, the solar field is responsible for more than 50% of the manufacturing impact, followed by the storage system (tanks and salts) and the receiver, each one with an approximate contribution of 20%. The remaining impact is linked to the power block (i.e., heat exchangers, turbines, pumps, pipes, etc.). [ 52 , 53 , 54 ] In a PTC plant, the distribution is somewhat different. Τhe manufacturing impact of the collectors is found to be around 40% the total impact, that of the storage block around 18%, and that of the production of the thermal oil close to 26%. [ 51 ]

Particularly, the highest manufacturing‐related impacts in solar‐thermal plants are linked to the HTP and GWP. This is again associated with the release of emissions of Cr, Ni, and Zn, as well as NO x , SO x , and CO 2 during the production of metals like steel and aluminum. [ 51 ] C. Mayo et al. [ 55 ] analyzed the impacts during the manufacturing stage of two different steel materials, used to build the molten salts storage tanks. They showed that the environmental impact of austenitic steel AISI 347H is considerably smaller when compared to the superalloy INCONEL 617. Nearly, 90% of the toxicity released during the production of the latter is due to included metals, like molybdenum or cobalt. AISI 347H is thus seen to be a more suitable material for the metal components of CSP plants. Furthermore, in the works of F.J. Pérez et al. [ 56 ] and E. Batuecas et al. [ 57 ] it was found that the HTF Therminol VP‐1 results in a higher environmental impact when compared to molten salts. Approximately, 56 kg of 1.4‐dichlorobenzene equivalents (1.4‐DCB eq ) and 10 kg of CO 2eq were emitted during the production of 1 kg of oil, mainly due to the diphenyl oxide in the eutectic mixture. On the other hand, the production processes of 1 kg of the two commercial types of solar salts, binary and HITEC, were seen to be less polluting than those of thermal oil, releasing 4 and 2 kg of CO 2eq , respectively.

During the operation stage of a solar‐thermal plant, the sun‐tracking system of the heliostats or collectors, the pumping system of the HTF, and other activities require an electrical input that normally comes from the grid. Hence, the impacts during this phase differ based on the fossil fuel share in the electricity mix assumed. [ 58 ] Another important aspect linked to environmental impacts is the water needed to keep the mirrors clean and avoid reflectivity losses during maintenance. In addition, the use of a natural gas heater to start the plant and prevent the freezing of the salts further increases the emissions. [ 52 ] A final factor that has a direct influence on the overall impact of solar‐thermal plants is the solar irradiation. S. Guillén‐Lambea and M. Carvalho [ 59 ] showed how two similar PTC plants of 100 MW, with 5 h of storage capacity and a lifetime of 30 years located in different countries result in different GWP results. One of the plants was in Northern Cape with an annual mean solar irradiation of 2900 kWh m −2 , whereas the second one was in California with an annual mean solar irradiation of 2700 kWh m −2 . The higher irradiation resulted in higher renewable power generation that in turn resulted in lower emissions over the life cycle of the plant.

3. Methodology

The environmental impacts accounted for in this work are the GWP expressed in g CO 2eq /kWh, the HTP in g 1.4–DCB eq /kWh, the AP in g SO 2eq /kWh, the EP in g PO 4eq /kWh, and the POCP expressed in g C 2 H 4eq /kWh. The functional unit considered is 1 kWh of electricity generated. In total, 44 papers available on the Scopus database and published between 2016 and 2020 are considered. Additional reports from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) are also used to obtain relevant information. The GWP of NRES, as well as their capacity estimations are based on Refs. [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. The analysis includes two scenarios: the equivalent power generation and the equivalent environmental impact.

In the case of the equivalent power generation, the design point of the plants is chosen to result in an equal power generation throughout the lifetime of the plants. The annual generation of an NRES plant is calculated by considering continuous, uninterrupted operation (365 days/year and 24 h/day) that is then multiplied by the capacity factor (CF) of the plant. The CF for coal and natural gas plants in this work has been assumed to be equal to 85%. The RES plants are then adjusted to accommodate that annual power generation and the required equivalent capacity is calculated (assuming a CF of 35%, 25%, and 40% for wind power, solar PV, and CSP, respectively). [ 65 , 66 ] A conservative 15% reduction in the power output has been accounted for as a CO 2 capture penalty for plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS). [ 12 ] The environmental impact of the similar‐sized RES and NRES plants are finally calculated and compared.

In the case of the equivalent environmental impact, the size of the RES plants is increased up to a configuration that would result in a total lifecycle environmental impact equal to that of the fossil fuel plants. This is realized for each one of the five environmental impact categories included in this study. The power generation of the RES and NRES plants is then estimated and compared.

Table 1 shows the average specifications of the wind and solar power plants collected from the reports and used as reference plants in this work. Table 2 shows the average environmental impact values of the reference plants. The latter includes the impacts of conventional natural gas and coal‐fired power plants based on Refs. [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. The technologies included have a power output between 500 and 550 MW and are: a natural gas combined cycle (ngcc), a subcritical coal plant (sub coal), a supercritical coal plant (sc coal), and an integrated gasification combined cycle (igcc). There is an additional distinction for plants that include post‐combustion carbon capture with monoethanolamine (MEA), [ 62 ] implying a GHG reduction of more than 50%. [ 60 ] Nevertheless, it is seen that other impact categories like acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical ozone creation tend to increase when applying a CCS configuration. [ 60 , 61 , 62 ]

Specifications of the RES plants

Environmental impacts of reference RES and NRES plants

4.1. Wind Energy

Table 3 presents the results of the first scenario of the study, when the NRES and onshore wind plants generate the same annual power. Overall, it is seen that wind power results in a much lower environmental impact, when compared to coal and natural gas plants. Specifically, the emissions of the wind farms are 36% to 85% lower than the emissions of the coal plants and 32% to 72% lower than the emissions of the NGCC, depending on whether CCS is included in the plant. In general, fossil fuel plants with CCS result in a much lower GWP than the same plants without CO 2 capture. However, the environmental impacts of the NGCC with CCS, as well as that of the IGCC, are much smaller than those of the other fossil fuel plants, approaching the impacts of the wind alternatives.

Comparison of the GWP and capacity of wind and NRES plants with the same annual generation of electricity

*Reference wind farm: Capacity = 70 MW; GWP = 7.34 g CO 2eq /kWh; Capacity factor: 35%

The influence of the efficiency on the resulting environmental impact is also important to note. The higher efficiency of the SC coal plant leads to a reduction in the GWP of the plant, when compared to that of the Sub coal plant, even when the plants have similar annual generation and capacities.

The resulting capacity of the wind plants is 2–3 times higher than that of the respective NRES plants. For example, to generate the same annual electricity, the installed capacity of wind energy must increase to 1200 MW, when the IGCC and the SC plants can retain capacities of around 500 MW. With the reference wind farm used in this work having a capacity of 70 MW, 4110 GWh would require the equivalent of 19 reference wind farms. This would imply a large surface area requirement in the case of the wind plant.

Table 4 shows the results of the second scenario of this work, when the fossil fuel and renewable plants are designed to have the same GWP. It is seen that while the plants result in the same GWP, the wind plants result in a power generation 1.5 to 8 times higher than the fossil fuel alternatives. On the smaller range of that spectrum are the NRES plants with the lowest environmental impacts (NGCC with CSS and IGCC) and on the larger range are sub‐ and SC coal plants. This result depends strongly on the values of CFs assumed. The CFs of the wind plants are relatively low in comparison to the fossil fuel alternatives. However, higher capacities are in turn linked to higher costs and larger surface area requirements. As a quick comparison, an IGCC plant of 497 MW would have the same GWP as a wind farm of 1907 MW, while a sub‐coal‐fired plant of 550 MW would have the same environmental impact of a wind farm of 8869 MW. In addition, the annual electricity generation is significantly higher, as the capacity of the wind plants is substantially higher as well. When compared to the IGCC plant, the annual electricity generation of the wind plant is higher by approximately 60%. Furthermore, the electricity generation of the wind plant is 6 times higher than that of the sub coal plant and 3 times higher than that of the natural gas alternative.

Comparison of the annual generation and capacity of wind and NRES plants with the same GWP

Other environmental categories (such as HTP and EP) are not as favorable for wind as GWP. The tables presented in Appendix B show the comparative analysis of the HTP, AP, and POCP impacts. In the case of HTP, the impact of wind power is found to be slightly higher than that of the NRES plants, with the same annual generation. The data show that the environmental performance of wind energy in these categories is better than the performance of some of the NRES plants. In general, an equivalent impact to that of the fossil fuel alternatives, allows a significant increase in renewable electricity production. This increase is found to be between 10% to 65% when the focus is on the AP impact and up to 85% when the POCP is considered.

As seen in Table 5 , the same annual power generation results in a slightly higher EP for the wind plants, when compared to most NRES plants. An exception is seen when compared to the SC coal power plant with CCS. In addition, the generation of the same power in the wind plants requires 2–3 times higher capacity when compared to the NRES plants.

Comparison of the EP and capacity of wind and NRES plants with the same annual generation of electricity

*Reference wind farm: Capacity = 70 MW; EP = 0.038 g PO 4eq /kWh; Capacity factor: 35%

Table 6 presents the design of the plants when the EP of the RES and NRES plants is equal. It is seen that a much smaller capacity and annual generation are required in all cases except for the case of the SC plant with CCS. The ratio of the annual generation of the NRES plants over that of the wind plants varies strongly from 1.13 in the case of the IGCC, up to 137 in the case of the natural gas plant. In the worst case, a wind park of 10 MW is seen to have the same EP as one NGCC plant of 552 MW.

Comparison of the annual generation and capacity of wind and NRES plants with the same EP

4.2. Solar PV

Table 7 shows the results of the first scenario, where the plants generate the same power output. It is seen that the PV plants result in more than double the capacity of the non‐renewable alternatives. It is also observed that the CO 2 emissions of the PV plant are lower than those of the sub‐coal (930 g CO 2eq /kWh) and SC (855 g CO 2eq /kWh) technologies, but higher than those of the rest of the plants (values shown in bold). When generating the same annual power as the IGCC, the PV plant requires a capacity 3.4 times higher, resulting in approximately 3 times higher emissions (591 vs 200 g CO 2eq /kWh). This analysis suggests that to perform better than fossil fuel plants with equivalent annual electricity generation, solar PV plants must operate with higher efficiencies and/or be manufactured with a GWP below that of the reference plant used here (68.6 g CO 2eq /kWh).

Comparison of the GWP and capacity of PV and NRES plants with the same annual power generation

*Reference PV plant: Capacity = 196 MW; GWP = 68.6 g CO 2eq /kWh; Capacity factor: 25%

Table 8 shows the results of the second scenario when the PV and NRES plants have the same GWP. It is clear that the PV plants result in a higher annual generation, when compared to the coal plants without CCS. In all other cases, the PV plants do not manage to reach the annual power generation of the NRES alternatives, even if their capacities are, in many cases, significantly higher.

Comparison of the annual generation and capacity of PV and NRES plants with the same GWP

The results of the analysis of the impacts HTP, AP, and EP are very similar to those of GWP, with a lower difference between PV and NRES capacities, ranging on average between 3% and 60% (Appendix C). In general, these impact values would be smaller if the reference plant had a higher nominal power or if the CF was above 25%.

4.3. Concentrating Solar Power

The reference CSP chosen has a thermal storage capacity of 7.5 h, reaching a CF of 40%.

As seen in Table 9 , when the CSP and the NRES plants have the same power output (Scenario 1), the capacity of the CSP plants is approximately 2 times higher. The GWP, on the other hand, remains lower for the CSP plants when compared to the NRES alternatives and, in most cases, lower than half that of the NRES plants.

Comparison of the GWP and capacity of CSP and NRES plants with the same annual power generation

*Reference CSP plant: Capacity = 150 MW; GWP = 24 g CO 2eq /kWh, capacity factor: 40%

Table 10 shows the capacity and annual generation of the plants, when the plants result in the same GWP (Scenario 2). It is seen that the annual generation of the CSP is 60% higher than the coal plant with CCS and 80% higher than the sub‐coal plant. In the case of the IGCC and the NGCC with CCS, the annual generation remains slightly lower than that of the CSP plant.

Comparison of the annual generation and capacity of CSP and NRES plants with the same GWP

Appendix D presents the results for the remaining environmental impact categories. The worst environmental profile of SPT and PTC plants is found for the HTP. The use of solar salts and thermal oils increases the toxicity potential of CSP technologies considerably and can affect the air and the water if not properly managed. The analysis shows that the HTP of the solar thermal plants ranges between 159 g 1.4‐ DCBeq/kWh and 192 g 1.4‐DCBeq/kWh, emissions 40% higher than those of the fossil fuel plants. This relatively high value is due to the NaNO 3 composition of the solar salts, which is higher for binary salts than HITEC technology. In the case of a PTC plant, the toxicity is higher because of the use of the Therminol VP‐1 synthetic oil.

Regarding the EP, the CSP plant of 150 MW results in the same value as the NGCC of 552 MW (0.01 g PO 4eq /kWh), which is the smallest difference found in this category. Hence, although having a higher EP than NGCC for the same annual generation, CSP is the least harmful RES in this category. Compared to the coal plants, the CSP results in an EP 6 to 9 times lower, depending on the technology incorporated. As seen in Appendix D, the CSP presents a better environmental performance than the NRES plants in the impact category of POCP as well.

5. Discussion

Overall, wind energy is seen to have the lowest GWP and AP among the renewable plants, followed by concentrating solar thermal and, finally, PV plants. Regarding the HTP, wind energy is again the least polluting technology, while CSP shows the worst results. On the other hand, CSP has the lowest EP, followed in this case by wind and then PV plants. Finally, when analyzing the POCP, PV facilities result in the lowest values, with wind and solar‐thermal plants having a similar impact.

Compared to the fossil fuel plants, CSP and wind plants perform overall better environmentally. On the contrary, PV plants are seen to result in higher values of global warming potential than low‐emission fossil‐fuel plants. Furthermore, renewable plants require significantly higher facilities than fossil fuel plants to result in the same annual power output, due to their relatively lower CFs. Specifically, to achieve the same annual generation as a 500 MW SC coal‐fired power plant, a wind farm of 1214 MW, a PV plant of 1700 MW, or a CSP plant of 1063 MW must be used. The higher relative capacity of the renewable plants can have significant implications on the required surface area for the installation of these plants, that could, consequently, limit their implementation.

Several options can be considered to improve the overall environmental performance of wind and solar energy systems. First, the most effective factor is the recycling rate of the materials used in the manufacturing process. Specifically, wind power plants with recycling rates higher than 90%, recovering metal pieces made of steel, copper, aluminum, and cast iron, used in the nacelle and tower, achieve the best results. [ 18 , 19 ] The turbine blades are the most challenging element to recycle as they are commonly made of epoxy or polyester resins. To prevent the blades ending up in landfills, thermoplastic resin blades are now under research as a fully recyclable alternative that significantly reduces the weight and manufacturing cost of the blades. [ 68 , 69 ] Particularly, more than 60% of the CFCs emissions are due to the epoxy resin of the blades, increasing the impact of O 3 depletion. [ 18 ] The implementation of thermoplastic blades could thus, most probably, largely benefit the environmental performance of wind farms. Regarding the different types of generators, permanent‐magnet synchronous generators (PMSGs) have remarkably better results in all environmental impact categories because of the lower material demand, when compared to doubly‐fed induction generator (DFIG). [ 20 , 23 ] The implementation of more PMSG turbines could thus be one of the measures to reduce the environmental impact of the next‐generation wind farms.

In PV plants, the recycling rate should be close to 95% to significantly decrease the environmental impact, especially due to the recovery of silicon wafers and aluminum frames. Moreover, the electricity mix needs to have a high renewable share to reduce the GWP and fossil fuel depletion of the electricity needed in the manufacturing process of PV modules. [ 33 ] As expected, an increase in the efficiency of solar cells would further reduce the raw materials and consequently lower the overall impacts. Using recycled aluminum and glass to reduce toxic emissions during the production process is another alternative. [ 31 ] Relying on other technologies, different than crystalline silicon, would also have a strong impact. For instance, cadmium telluride cells are cheaper to produce and have a lower environmental impact than crystalline silicon PV cells, as they require less energy and consume less water. [ 30 ] Moreover, under humid and warm weather conditions, cadmium telluride cells perform better than crystalline technologies and are also less affected by shadowing. [ 70 ] Other important parameters that significantly affect the GWP of PV are the lifetime and power output. From the LCA reports reviewed in this work, it is seen that a long lifetime, a larger capacity or high irradiation conditions, result in PV systems with better environmental profiles. [ 34 ]

In CSP plants, salts or synthetic oils are landfilled as toxic waste. Other, more environmentally friendly, HTFs are crucial to improve the environmental performance of CSP plants. Several studies concluded that the HITEC solar salt is the least pollutive among different HTFs, due to its low concentration of NaNO 3 . [ 56 , 57 ] In addition, it can be used as storage material in salt tanks. The impact of salt tanks is lower when made of austenitic steel instead of superalloys. Despite the extremely good mechanical and thermal properties of superalloy INCONEL 617, its composition includes toxic metals like molybdenum or cobalt, responsible for more than 90% of the toxicity emitted during the production process. In the solar field, the sun‐tracking system of the heliostats or collectors, the pumping system of the HTF, and other activities require an electrical input that normally comes from the grid. Depending on the fossil fuel share in the electricity mix of the country where the plant is located, the associated impacts differ significantly. [ 58 ] Finally, if a co‐firing system is included in the plant, the best alternative seems to be biogas derivatives. [ 54 , 58 , 71 ]

6. Conclusions 

The construction of large‐scale renewable plants involves energy‐demanding processes and significant amounts of rare materials. It was seen that most of the environmental impact of wind and solar plants is linked to manufacturing. In the case of wind energy, the main contributors were the production processes that involve steel, iron, copper, and composite materials for the tower, nacelle, and rotor. For the PV plants, the environmental impact was linked to the production of the included modules and depended strongly on the electricity mix of the manufacturing country. Finally, most of the environmental impact of concentrating solar plants was seen to stem equally from manufacturing and operation (e.g., HTF maintenance, sun‐tracking system).

When compared to fossil fuel alternatives, wind energy was found to have a lower GWP than all fossil‐fuel plants assessed in this study. In the case of PV, on the other hand, that was only true when compared to conventional coal power plants. The GWP of PV was found to be higher than low‐emission technologies like natural gas, integrated gasification, or SC coal with CCS. The GWP of CSP was lower than that of fossil fuel plants. The performance of CSP was better when thermal energy storage was included, leading to more competitive CFs. The natural gas plant with carbon capture and the plant with integrated gasification resulted in a relatively low GWP, close to that of the renewable plants.

It was seen that although renewable plants have near‐zero direct emissions, the environmental impact of large‐scale installations is not negligible, and, in some cases, comparable or even higher than that of low‐carbon fossil fuel plants. Among the factors that can reduce the impacts of wind and solar plants are longer lifetimes, larger power capacities, and higher recycling rates. A plant with a higher capacity and longer lifetime produces larger amounts of energy with lower relative emissions. Hence, the successful transition to renewables should rely on large‐scale plants, with efficient operation and high end‐life recycling rates.

State of the Art of RES Technologies

Wind turbine generators use the kinetic energy of wind to move rotor blades and transform the mechanical energy into electricity. [ 18 ] Wind energy can be installed onshore or offshore. Offshore Wind turbine generators usually imply higher power generation due to more intense gusts of wind, but also higher costs of operation and maintenance. Moreover, they typically require some type of foundation that further increases the mass of the structure and the manufacturing cost. [ 19 ] The main parts of a wind turbine are the rotor, the nacelle, and the tower. The nacelle includes the low and high‐speed shafts, the generator, the brake, the yaw drive, and the controller. Wind turbines may include a gearbox depending on their type of generator. Gearless configuration (direct drive) does not include any elements between the rotor and the alternator, so they both reach the same rotational speed. The main direct‐drive technologies are excited‐synchronous and permanent‐magnet generator. The most typical technique, however, involves the use of a gearbox to increase the speed of the shaft and produce more power. At utility‐scale, a doubly‐fed induction generator is the most used technology. The deployment of wind energy has gained special attention in China, USA, and some European countries. [ 20 ] In Europe, Germany leads in onshore wind, whereas the United Kingdom leads in offshore wind applications, with turbines installed all across the North Sea. [ 21 ]

Solar energy systems are divided into PV and solar thermal technologies. Solar PV systems convert sunlight into electricity using the PV effect. Solar panels can be installed on the roof of homes to ensure energy self‐sufficiency, but they can also be used in utility‐scale solar power facilities. [ 22 ] PV modules are made of solar cells from different materials with particular properties. Typically, solar cells are classified into three main groups. First‐generation cells are made of silicon and are divided into m‐Si or p‐Si. They share almost 95% of the market but p‐Si cells are more dominant due to their easier and cheaper manufacturing. [ 23 ] The purity of silicon is higher in m‐Si cells, implying a higher efficiency but also a more complex production process. In general, one m‐Si solar module is made of 72 cells, whereas a p‐Si module includes 54 cells, with an average power output of 300 and 200 Wp, respectively. [ 22 , 23 ] Second‐generation cells are usually known as thin‐film PV (TFPV). TFPV differs from crystalline cells in the fact that the semi‐conductive material is laminated with very low thickness. This feature makes manufacturing much easier and gives the cell high flexibility. The most developed TFPV cells are cadmium telluride and amorphous silicon. Finally, third‐generation solar cells use organic semiconductors but the level of maturity is really low compared to other types of cells. [ 24 ] A solar module is normally encapsulated with ethylene vinyl acetate, a polymer material that decreases power losses. A glass layer is produced to protect the module from external environmental elements and then, an aluminum frame is placed to avoid damage. [ 25 ] The fact that solar modules deliver direct current makes it necessary to include a series of auxiliary elements before the grid connection, such as a charge controller, a DC/AC inverter, a transformer, and a power meter. China, USA, and Japan are the countries with the highest installed capacity of PV. [ 23 ]

Solar‐thermal systems convert sun radiation into thermal energy. One application of such systems is the use of solar collectors for the generation of heat and warm water in buildings. However, solar thermal is more commonly used to generate electricity in central facilities, and specifically in CSP plants. These facilities use special reflectors to concentrate the solar irradiation onto a receiver and heat up a fluid that circulates through it. This fluid can be molten salts or thermal oil that once it reaches the operating temperature, it is used to generate steam and produce electricity in a conventional Rankine cycle. [ 26 ] The main types of CSP are: PTC, SPT, linear Fresnel reflectors, and parabolic dish collectors. [ 27 ] Among these, PTC and SPT are the most deployed technologies. PTC is more mature than SPT, but the development potential and efficiency of the latter are higher. [ 28 ] CSP technologies usually include a thermal energy storage system, commonly based on two molten salts tanks at different temperatures. In existing SPT and PTC plants, common storage capacities are from 10 to 15 h, and 4 to 9 h, respectively. [ 29 ] World leaders today in installed capacity of CSP are Spain, USA, and China with 48, 15, and 10 operational plants, respectively. [ 30 ]

Comparison analysis of the HTP, AP, and POCP of wind and NRES power plants.

Comparison analysis of the HTP, EP, AP, and POCP of PV and NRES power plants.

Comparison analysis of the HTP, EP, AP, and POCP of CSP and NRES power plants.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contributions

J.F.T.: Methodology, Analysis, Writing‐Original Draft, Review & Editing. F.P.: Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing‐Original Draft, Review & Editing.

Acknowledgements

F.P. would like to thank the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, and the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Ramón y Cajal Programme, RYC‐2016‐20971).

Torres J. F., Petrakopoulou F., A Closer Look at the Environmental Impact of Solar and Wind Energy . Global Challenges 2022, 6 , 2200016. 10.1002/gch2.202200016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Data Availability Statement

Essay On Solar Energy

500 words essay on  solar energy.

Solar energy refers to the energy which the sunlight contains in the form of photons. It is not possible for life on earth to exist without solar energy .  All kinds of microorganisms and single-celled organisms came into existence with solar energy’s help. Plants have been using this energy ever since the beginning. Thus, through essay on solar energy, we will study about it in detail.

Methods of Using Solar Energy

We can trap solar energy in a lot of ways. One of the most efficient ways to do this is by using solar power plants. The design of these power plants is such that it helps to produce electricity on a larger level.

Other appliances which work on solar energy are solar cookers, solar heaters and solar cells. The solar cookers are said to be the most innovative methods of cooking nowadays. It is a great alternative to conventional fuels like gas, kerosene and wood .

These cookers are eco-friendly and also inexpensive means of cooking. Further, we have solar heaters which help to heat water using solar energy. Thus, it does not require electricity to heat water.

Finally, we have solar cells. They operate by directly converting solar light into electricity. In areas where supply from power grid is less available, solar cells are quite popular.

Similarly, a lot of calculators, wrist watch and other similar systems operate with this technology. The electricity which solar panels produce also stores in rechargeable solar batteries.

Advantages of Solar Energy

A major advantage of solar energy is that it is a renewable source. Thus, it will be available to use as long as the Sun is present. In other words, for another 5 billion years. As a result, everyone can use it abundantly.

Further, using solar energy can assist in reducing our electricity bills. When we use this energy, we will become less dependent on non-renewable sources of energy like petroleum and coal .

Moreover, we can utilize solar energy for a lot of purposes. One can produce electricity as well as heat. We use this energy in regions where we won’t require an electricity grid. Another advantage is that it is a clean fuel.

Using this energy will not result in pollution and thus, it won’t harm the environment. As a result, air pollution will significantly decrease. Both the government and individuals must try to promote and incorporate this energy in our daily lives.

This way, it can become the future of our world. It will make the world a greener and cleaner place as well. So, we must all try to switch to solar energy to make the world a better place.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of Essay On Solar Energy

Solar energy is the future of our upcoming generation. It is safe and a greener and economical alternative. Moreover, it can be replenished so it serves as a renewable source of energy. As a result, it does not cause pollution . Thus, we must try to use solar energy more and more to save our planet earth.

FAQ on Essay On Solar Energy

Question 1: What is the importance of solar energy?

Answer 1: Solar energy is the power from the sun. It is a vast, inexhaustible, and clean resource. We can use this energy directly to heat and light homes and businesses. Similarly, we can also produce electricity, and heat water, solar cooling, and a variety of other commercial and industrial uses.

Question 2: Is solar energy renewable energy?

Answer 2: Yes, solar energy is a renewable energy. Thus, we can use it as much as we want and benefit from it in ways more than one.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Solar Energy Comparison

An in-depth comparison: solar power vs. wind power 0.

In our current time, the majority of the world relies heavily on fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas for energy. And though technically, they do provide us with sufficient energy, using them is not really a good idea in the long run. This is because fossil fuels are non-renewable, which means that they draw on sources that will eventually run out. And once these finite sources finally dwindle, they will be too expensive or too environmentally damaging to get back.

That is why, as early as possible, we have to find another way to generate energy without using fossil fuels. In other words, we need to start using energy that is renewable . Thankfully, our planet actually has a lot of renewable sources of energy. And two of the most popular right now are solar energy and wind energy. 

But what are the differences between these two? And — if it’s possible to answer this question — which one is the better option? 

Solar Power vs. Wind Power: Compare and Contrast

How do they work .

True to their names, solar energy and wind energy generate electricity by using the sun and the wind, respectively. That is the easy way of describing the two of them. The way they actually work is a little more complicated than that. 

To begin with, solar energy generates electricity either through the sun’s heat or the sun’s light. The former makes use of the Concentrated Solar Thermal systems (CSP), which concentrate the radiation of the sun to heat a liquid that will then be used to drive a heat engine and drive an electric generator. Meanwhile, solar energy can also produce electricity through light and the technology of Photovoltaic (PV). Simply put, solar PV cells absorb light, which then knocks electrons loose. Then once those loose electrons flow, a current is created, which is then captured and transferred into wires, effectively generating direct electric current. 

Wind energy, on the other hand, is actually another form of solar energy. It is caused by a combination of three concurrent events: 1) the sun unevenly heating the atmosphere, 2) irregularities of the earth’s surface and 3) the rotation of the earth. The way wind power works is that it uses wind turbines to convert the kinetic energy from the wind into mechanical power. And then, that mechanical power can be used for specific tasks like grinding grain or pumping water, or a generator can convert it into electricity. 

What Are Their Advantages?

Solar energy has the following benefits:

• The sun is everywhere, so practically anywhere is an ideal place for solar installation.
• Solar energy systems generally don’t require a lot of maintenance. You just need to keep them relatively clean.
• Solar energy can be used for diverse purposes. You can either generate electricity through light (PV) or heat (CSP).
• A solar panel system is totally silent in operation. 
• It is also less susceptible to lightning and high wind damage.
• It requires less space in most cases since the panels can be installed on the roof.

As for wind energy, the following are its advantages:

• The wind is free and everywhere. 
• Harvesting wind power is a clean, non-polluting way to generate electricity.
• Wind turbines can convert up to 60% of kinetic energy into power.

What Are Their Disadvantages?

Solar energy has the following disadvantages:

• It can only be used during the daytime. It’s possible to use solar power during nighttime or days with little to no sun through the use of CSP systems, but CSP systems are far more expensive than PV. So, they’re not as utilized as much. 
• Sometimes, a large area would be needed for the installation, and this can be a problem for a lot of people.  
• Most solar panels can only convert 14% of their available energy into power. The highest it can get is usually around 22%. 

For wind energy, the main disadvantages are:

• It only works when the wind blows, and the wind is an irregular source.
• Wind turbines have moving parts that require specialized maintenance.
• Wind turbines need to be high to have access to less turbulent wind. This can create visual pollution.
• Wind turbines can make noise, which can be an issue near homes.
• Wind turbines require planning and building approval, and their height is often a problem in residential areas. 
• It can be difficult to find good sites for wind turbines because they need to be clear from ground obstructions that can affect the wind. 

Where Do They Work Best?

Since the sun is pretty much everywhere, then it’s safe to say that solar energy can work anywhere as well. At least, generally speaking. However, it should be noted that there are some places that are more exposed to the sun than others. So, even though the sun is everywhere, there are still particular places that are more ideal for solar panel conversion. These places are usually those that are located near the equator. 

Meanwhile, the wind is not as reliable and available and the sun is. So, when it comes to wind energy, geography matters a lot more. Wind turbines require environments that are almost barren of large windbreaks and buildings. There should be no tall growth or structure that can interrupt the steady flow of wind. And aside from that, some areas don’t allow the construction of any type of structure beyond a certain height. So, basically, wind energy is restrictive in terms of where they can be constructed. 

That said, wind power systems are reported to do very well in the Plains states. Coastal areas, at the tops of rounded hills, open plains, and gaps in mountains are other ideal places where wind energy might work the best.

Related article:

• The World’s Largest Solar Power Plants
• Best solar panel suppliers in the world

How Efficient Are They?

For solar energy, it actually depends on the technologies used. As mentioned earlier, solar energy either makes use of the CSP systems or PV. Between the two, CSP systems are more efficient because they can store energy through the use of Thermal Energy Storage technologies (TES). In other words, even without the sun — like during nighttime or during cloudy days — they can still generate electric power. This is unlike the PV systems since PV systems aren’t capable of producing or storing thermal energy since they use direct sunlight, not the sun’s heat. So, with PV, only a small number of energy can be converted into power — around 14% to 22%.

In other words, yes, generally speaking, solar energy is pretty efficient. But that would depend on the system that you choose. 

As for wind energy, wind turbines can convert nearly half of the wind hitting them into electrical power. The efficiency is measured based on the actual amount of kinetic energy that’s converted. And for wind turbines, the ultimate conversion rate is estimated to be about 60%. The reason why the ultimate conversion is about 60% and not 100% is because if a turbine could absorb 100% of the wind’s energy, the blades of the turbine would automatically stop turning. 

Additionally, the way electrical generators are designed and manufactured is another limitation for wind turbines converting wind into energy. This is because electrical generators are engineered to only handle a certain amount of energy at one time. The average power conversion rate currently peaks at about 45%, but it might be able to reach 50%, maximum.

Which Is More Efficient? 

For a lot of homeowners in the United States, solar energy is the much-preferred choice. But for the increasing number of commercial entities, the preference is more inclined towards wind power. 

The one strong benefit of wind over solar for your home is that wind turbines aren’t fully dependent on the sun. So, it can generate power 24 hours a day. Furthermore, the wind is considered more efficient than solar because these systems use less energy, release less carbon dioxide, and yet still produce more overall energy. One single wind turbine can generate the same amount of electricity in kilowatt-hours as thousands of solar panels. 

But just because wind turbines produce more energy doesn’t make wind energy the undefeated winner. Solar energy, through the CSP systems, can also be used even without the sun. The only problem is between CSP and PV, PV is more popular because it’s the cheaper option. 

Additionally, wind turbines take up much more space than solar panels. They also can’t be used in highly populated areas, and they’re harmful to birds. Wind turbines usually require nearly sky-scraping positioning and a great distance from trees and taller buildings. 

How Much Does It Cost to Build a Wind Turbine or Install a Solar Panel System at Home?

It’s difficult to determine the average cost to install a rooftop or ground array solar system because it changes every now and then. A variety of factors always alter the cost, and these factors include the type and number of panels being installed, the area of the country where it will be installed, local pricing and installation fees, and incentives. That said, the unsubsidized monthly cost for financing a rooftop array for an average of 2,000 square foot home can range between $87 and $219 a month for materials and installation costs. 

As for wind energy, a typical American home would need a small turbine that can generate at least 5-kW. In order to buy and install a wind system large enough to power an entire home, the cost is about $20,000. But this price can still change, depending on the size of the home, the type and height of the system, and any other extra related costs. 

Related article: Top 20 Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S.

Which Is Cheaper in Terms of Cost Per kWh?

As was mentioned earlier, a 5 kW wind turbine will cost around $20,000 and will generate between 8,000-12,000 kWh per year. So, you can say that it costs about $2 per kWh of annual production. And if the wind turbine lasts 10 years, then each kWh of power costs $0.20.

Meanwhile, for solar systems, you will need a 7 kW system to produce the same amount of power. And the national average cost of installing solar is 3.08 per watt, thus making the cost of a 7 kW system $21,480 before the 30% tax credit. 

So, in a way, both wind and solar energies are alike in terms of initial costs to get a set amount of kWh of electricity per year. However, you should take note that wind has far higher ongoing maintenance costs than solar. It also only has a 5-year warranty typically. What this means is that over the life of a wind system and solar system, the actual cost per kWh with solar is less than half the lifetime cost per kWh of wind for small-scale systems. 

With this, you can say that solar is the clear winner for residential applications. 

In this day and age, it’s becoming more and more important to find alternative ways of generating energy without damaging the environment. It’s a blessing that renewable sources do exist, and we can use them. Two of the most widely popular renewable sources are the sun and the wind. 

Both solar energy and wind energy have the same goal of producing energy in a way that is clean and efficient. But despite their similarities, they do have their own lists of differences and of benefits and disadvantages. Generally speaking, solar energy seems to be more superior than wind. But that doesn’t make it the clear winner. This is because, for some places, wind energy might actually be a better fit than solar. 

Basically, both solar energy and wind energy are good alternatives for the production of energy. They can be useful in their own time and place. So, whichever a customer will end up choosing, it won’t really matter much. Because both of them are trusted and approved, so everyone will get their money’s worth. 

• https://sunmetrix.com/where-is-the-best-location-on-earth-for-solar-energy/
• https://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/wind.htm
• https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/is-solar-or-wind-a-better-way-to-power-your-home
• https://helioscsp.com/concentrated-solar-power-csp-vs-photovoltaic-pv/
• https://www.renewableresourcescoalition.org/solar-energy-disadvantages/
• https://www.sepco-solarlighting.com/blog/bid/115086/Solar-Power-Advantages-and-Disadvantages
• https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2014/08/5-advantages-and-5-disadvantages-of-solar-energy
• https://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/lloyd2/
• https://news.energysage.com/solar-vs-wind-energy-right-home/
• https://www.energymatters.com.au/components/solar-vs-wind/
• https://www.solarelectricityhandbook.com/Solar-Articles/wind-turbines.html
• https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index/tech.html
• https://windexchange.energy.gov/what-is-wind
• https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/how-do-wind-turbines-work
• https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/how-does-solar-power-work-anyway
• https://www.windustry.org/pros_cons_wind_energy

Seeking wholesale solar materials?

Don’t run around requesting for quotes. Let quotes come to you!

SolarFeeds Marketplace – Copyright © 2022

• [email protected]

Search the United Nations

• What Is Climate Change
• Myth Busters
• Renewable Energy
• Finance & Justice
• Initiatives
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Paris Agreement
• Climate Ambition Summit 2023
• Climate Conferences
• Press Material
• Communications Tips

Renewable energy – powering a safer future

Energy is at the heart of the climate challenge – and key to the solution.

A large chunk of the greenhouse gases that blanket the Earth and trap the sun’s heat are generated through energy production, by burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and heat.

Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, are by far the largest contributor to global climate change , accounting for over 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions.

The science is clear: to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, emissions need to be reduced by almost half by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050.

To achieve this, we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels and invest in alternative sources of energy that are clean, accessible, affordable, sustainable, and reliable.

Renewable energy sources – which are available in abundance all around us, provided by the sun, wind, water, waste, and heat from the Earth – are replenished by nature and emit little to no greenhouse gases or pollutants into the air.

Fossil fuels still account for more than 80 percent of global energy production , but cleaner sources of energy are gaining ground. About 29 percent of electricity currently comes from renewable sources.

Here are five reasons why accelerating the transition to clean energy is the pathway to a healthy, livable planet today and for generations to come.

1. Renewable energy sources are all around us

About 80 percent of the global population lives in countries that are net-importers of fossil fuels -- that’s about 6 billion people who are dependent on fossil fuels from other countries, which makes them vulnerable to geopolitical shocks and crises.

In contrast, renewable energy sources are available in all countries, and their potential is yet to be fully harnessed. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that 90 percent of the world’s electricity can and should come from renewable energy by 2050.

Renewables offer a way out of import dependency, allowing countries to diversify their economies and protect them from the unpredictable price swings of fossil fuels, while driving inclusive economic growth, new jobs, and poverty alleviation.

2. Renewable energy is cheaper

Renewable energy actually is the cheapest power option in most parts of the world today. Prices for renewable energy technologies are dropping rapidly. The cost of electricity from solar power fell by 85 percent between 2010 and 2020. Costs of onshore and offshore wind energy fell by 56 percent and 48 percent respectively.

Falling prices make renewable energy more attractive all around – including to low- and middle-income countries, where most of the additional demand for new electricity will come from. With falling costs, there is a real opportunity for much of the new power supply over the coming years to be provided by low-carbon sources.

Cheap electricity from renewable sources could provide 65 percent of the world’s total electricity supply by 2030. It could decarbonize 90 percent of the power sector by 2050, massively cutting carbon emissions and helping to mitigate climate change.

Although solar and wind power costs are expected to remain higher in 2022 and 2023 then pre-pandemic levels due to general elevated commodity and freight prices, their competitiveness actually improves due to much sharper increases in gas and coal prices, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).

3. Renewable energy is healthier

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 99 percent of people in the world breathe air that exceeds air quality limits and threatens their health, and more than 13 million deaths around the world each year are due to avoidable environmental causes, including air pollution.

The unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide originate mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. In 2018, air pollution from fossil fuels caused $2.9 trillion in health and economic costs , about $8 billion a day.

Switching to clean sources of energy, such as wind and solar, thus helps address not only climate change but also air pollution and health.

4. Renewable energy creates jobs

Every dollar of investment in renewables creates three times more jobs than in the fossil fuel industry. The IEA estimates that the transition towards net-zero emissions will lead to an overall increase in energy sector jobs : while about 5 million jobs in fossil fuel production could be lost by 2030, an estimated 14 million new jobs would be created in clean energy, resulting in a net gain of 9 million jobs.

In addition, energy-related industries would require a further 16 million workers, for instance to take on new roles in manufacturing of electric vehicles and hyper-efficient appliances or in innovative technologies such as hydrogen. This means that a total of more than 30 million jobs could be created in clean energy, efficiency, and low-emissions technologies by 2030.

Ensuring a just transition , placing the needs and rights of people at the heart of the energy transition, will be paramount to make sure no one is left behind.

5. Renewable energy makes economic sense

About $7 trillion was spent on subsidizing the fossil fuel industry in 2022, including through explicit subsidies, tax breaks, and health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels.

In comparison, about $4 trillion a year needs to be invested in renewable energy until 2030 – including investments in technology and infrastructure – to allow us to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The upfront cost can be daunting for many countries with limited resources, and many will need financial and technical support to make the transition. But investments in renewable energy will pay off. The reduction of pollution and climate impacts alone could save the world up to $4.2 trillion per year by 2030.

Moreover, efficient, reliable renewable technologies can create a system less prone to market shocks and improve resilience and energy security by diversifying power supply options.

Learn more about how many communities and countries are realizing the economic, societal, and environmental benefits of renewable energy.

Will developing countries benefit from the renewables boom? Learn more here .

What is renewable energy?

Derived from natural resources that are abundant and continuously replenished, renewable energy is key to a safer, cleaner, and sustainable world. Explore common sources of renewable energy here.

Why invest in renewable energy?

Learn more about the differences between fossil fuels and renewables, the benefits of renewable energy, and how we can act now.

Five ways to jump-start the renewable energy transition now

UN Secretary-General outlines five critical actions the world needs to prioritize now to speed up the global shift to renewable energy.

What is net zero? Why is it important? Our net-zero page explains why we need steep emissions cuts now and what efforts are underway.

• What is climate change?

Our climate 101 offers a quick take on the how and why of climate change. Read more.

How will the world foot the bill? We explain the issues and the value of financing climate action.

Climate issues

Learn more about how climate change impacts are felt across different sectors and ecosystems.

It’s time to stop burning our planet, and start investing in the abundant renewable energy all around us." ANTÓNIO GUTERRES , United Nations Secretary-General

Facts and figures

• Causes and effects
• Myth busters

Cutting emissions

• Explaining net zero
• High-level expert group on net zero
• Checklists for credibility of net-zero pledges
• Greenwashing
• What you can do

Clean energy

• Renewable energy – key to a safer future
• What is renewable energy
• Five ways to speed up the energy transition
• Why invest in renewable energy
• Clean energy stories
• A just transition

Adapting to climate change

• Climate adaptation
• Early warnings for all
• Youth voices

Financing climate action

• Finance and justice
• Loss and damage
• $100 billion commitment
• Why finance climate action
• Biodiversity
• Human Security

International cooperation

• What are Nationally Determined Contributions
• Acceleration Agenda
• Climate Ambition Summit
• Climate conferences (COPs)
• Youth Advisory Group
• Action initiatives
• Secretary-General’s speeches
• Press material
• Fact sheets
• Communications tips

• Wind Energy Technologies Office
• Wind Energy Career Map
• Key Activities in Wind Energy
• WETO Budget
• WETO Organization & Contacts
• Atmosphere to Electrons
• Distributed Wind
• Environmental Impacts & Siting
• Next-Generation Wind Technology
• Demonstration
• Floating Offshore Wind Shot
• Market Acceleration
• R&D Consortium
• Renewable Systems Integration
• Resource Assessment & Characterization
• Testing & Certification
• Drivetrains
• Infrastructure & Logistics
• Wind Turbine Radar Interference
• Wind Turbine Sustainability
• Workforce Development & Education
• History of Wind Energy
• How Distributed Wind Works
• How Wind Turbines Work
• WINDExchange
• Small Wind Systems FAQs
• WETO Peer Reviews
• Wind Energy FAQs
• Wind Energy Market Reports
• Wind Energy Projects Map
• Related Opportunities
• Wind Energy Technologies Office Updates
• Wind R&D Newsletter

Wind energy offers many advantages, which explains why it's one of the fastest-growing energy sources in the world. To further expand wind energy’s capabilities and community benefits, researchers are working to address technical and socio-economic challenges in support of a decarbonized electricity future.

Learn more about ongoing research to take advantage of these benefits and tackle wind energy challenges.

Advantages of Wind Power

• Wind power creates good-paying jobs.  There are over 125,000 people working in the U.S. wind industry across all 50 states, and that number continues to grow. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , wind turbine service technicians are the fastest growing U.S. job of the decade. Offering career opportunities ranging from blade fabricator to asset manager, the wind industry has the potential to support hundreds of thousands of more jobs by 2050.
• Wind power is a domestic resource that enables U.S. economic growth. In 2022, wind turbines operating in all 50 states generated more than 10% of the net total of the country’s energy . That same year, investments in new wind projects added $20 billion to the U.S. economy.
• Wind power is a clean and renewable energy source. Wind turbines harness energy from the wind using mechanical power to spin a generator and create electricity. Not only is wind an abundant and inexhaustible resource, but it also provides electricity without burning any fuel or polluting the air. Wind energy in the United States helps avoid 336 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually —equivalent to the emissions from 73 million cars.
• Wind power benefits local communities. Wind projects deliver an estimated $2 billion in state and local tax payments and land-lease payments each year. Communities that develop wind energy can use the extra revenue to put towards school budgets, reduce the tax burden on homeowners, and address local infrastructure projects.
• Wind power is cost-effective. Land-based, utility-scale wind turbines provide one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today. Furthermore, wind energy’s cost competitiveness continues to improve with advances in the science and technology of wind energy.
• Wind turbines work in different settings. Wind energy generation fits well in agricultural and multi-use working landscapes. Wind energy is easily integrated in rural or remote areas, such as farms and ranches or coastal and island communities, where high-quality wind resources are often found.

Challenges of Wind Power

• Wind power must compete with other low-cost energy sources. When comparing the cost of energy associated with new power plants , wind and solar projects are now more economically competitive than gas, geothermal, coal, or nuclear facilities. However, wind projects may not be cost-competitive in some locations that are not windy enough. Next-generation technology , manufacturing improvements , and a better understanding of wind plant physics can help bring costs down even more.
• Ideal wind sites are often in remote locations. Installation challenges must be overcome to bring electricity from wind farms to urban areas, where it is needed to meet demand. Upgrading the nation’s transmission network to connect areas with abundant wind resources to population centers could significantly reduce the costs of expanding land-based wind energy. In addition, offshore wind energy transmission and grid interconnection capabilities are improving.
• Turbines produce noise and alter visual aesthetics. Wind farms have different impacts on the environment compared to conventional power plants, but similar concerns exist over both the noise produced by the turbine blades and the  visual impacts on the landscape .
• Wind plants can impact local wildlife. Although wind projects rank lower than other energy developments in terms of wildlife impacts, research is still needed to minimize wind-wildlife interactions . Advancements in technologies,  properly siting wind plants, and ongoing environmental research are working to reduce the impact of wind turbines on wildlife.

Intelligent insights & conversations with global power industry professionals

Energy Central News

Curated power industry news from thousands of top sources.

What Are the Advantages of Wind Energy and Solar Energy?

• Oct 30, 2020 Oct 30, 2020 1:36 pm GMT

By: Melissa Pistilli

Wind power and solar power are considered the two primary choices for clean energy.

As clean technologies, both solar energy and wind power significantly decrease pollution and have minimal operational costs. These are attractive reasons to make the switch to clean energy solutions–but there’s certainly more to wind and solar energy than that.

Here, the Investing News Network (INN) provides a very brief introductory into wind energy and solar energy, the advantages of renewable energy and the future outlook for these clean energy technologies.

Experts forecast the cleantech market will reach US$350 billion in 2020.

  <h5 align="center">Read your FREE 2020 market report!</h5> Give me my free report!

What are wind energy and solar energy?

Putting it simply, wind energy is the process of air flowing through wind turbines to automatically generate power by converting the kinetic energy in the wind into mechanical power.

Wind energy can provide electricity to utility grids and homes as well as provide energy to charge batteries and pump water. The three main kinds of wind power are broken down by  the American Wind Energy Association  into the following:

• Utility-scale wind : Wind turbines bigger than 100 kilowatts that deliver electricity to the power grid and end user via electric utilities or power system operators;
• Distributed wind : Wind turbines smaller than 100 kilowatts that are used to directly provide power to a home, farm or small business as its main function;
• Offshore wind : Wind turbines placed in large bodies of water, generally on the continental shelf.

Interestingly, wind energy is also an indirect form of solar energy. According to the Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS, “winds are caused by the uneven heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the irregularities of the earth’s surface, and rotation of the earth.”

Solar power is energy derived from the sun’s rays and then converted into either thermal or electrical energy.

According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) , solar energy can be created in the following three ways: photovoltaics, solar heating and cooling and concentrating solar power.

• Photovoltaics : Generates electricity directly from sunlight via an electronic process to power small electronics, road signs, homes and large commercial businesses.
• Solar heating and cooling : Uses the heat generated by the sun to provide water heating or space heating and cooling.
• Concentrating solar power : Uses the heat generated by the sun to run traditional electricity-generating turbines.

What are the advantages of wind energy and solar energy?

Now that we’ve covered the basics of wind energy and solar energy, let’s look at the advantages of these two clean energy sources.

In terms of advantages, as carbon-free, renewable energy sources, wind and solar can help reduce the world’s dependence on oil and gas . These carbon fuels are responsible for the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that affect the quality of our air, water and soil—which all contribute to environmental degradation and climate change.

For homeowners and businesses, the ability to generate and store electricity onsite provides a backups source of power for when energy needs cannot be filled by the traditional utilities grid. For example, during California’s most recent wildfire seasons, large-scale utilities companies such as PG&E (NYSE: PCG ) have shut off power to tens of thousands of people during record heatwaves in an effort to prevent fires like the several dozen linked to downed power lines in the past few years. Solar energy generated onsite could help homeowners and businesses to not only fight climate change, but have a reliable backup energy source when utility-scale grids are shutdown.

Solar panel installations are easy to use and can also save on energy bills. In some regions, users may qualify for tax breaks or energy rebates if they produce excess energy that can be delivered to the utility grid. In Canada, for example, there are at least 77 clean energy incentive programs available that offer a combined total of 285 energy efficiency rebates and 27 renewable energy rebates.

Both solar energy and wind energy are on the path to becoming the world’s most affordable sources of energy. “Land-based utility-scale wind is one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today, costing 1–2 cents per kilowatt-hour after the production tax credit,” according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). “Because the electricity from wind farms is sold at a fixed price over a long period of time (e.g. 20+ years) and its fuel is free, wind energy mitigates the price uncertainty that fuel costs add to traditional sources of energy.”

The price of harnessing the sun’s power is dropping each year on technology advancements. In the past decade, solar energy has been on a low-cost trajectory, sliding from US$0.51 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2010 to US$0.15 cents per kWh in 2018, according to DOE figures. The US agency estimates solar costs falling further to US$.05 cents by 2030.

Are you read to profit from the technology market?

  <h5 class="subheadline" align="center">Read your free outlook report on today.</h5>  Give me my free report!

Future outlook for wind energy and solar energy

Looking ahead for the wind energy sector, the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) reports that 355GW of new capacity will be added between 2020 and 2024, representing a CAGR of 4 percent. The GWEC sees government support mechanism as a key driver of this growth, giving way to market-based growth in 2021. “Developing markets and offshore will play a larger role in driving the global wind market,” said the report’s authors. “Offshore wind is expected to grow from 6GW in 2019 to nearly 80GW in 2024, bringing its market share in global new installations from 10 [percent] in 2019 to 20 [percent] by 2024.

As for solar energy, the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2020 report pegs solar as now cheaper than coal. Along with wind energy, solar energy is expected to make up 80 percent of the global electric energy market by 2030. “I see solar becoming the new king of the world’s electricity markets,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol in a news release. “Based on today’s policy settings, it is on track to set new records for deployment every year after 2022.”

Lux Research predicts that the transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources will be accelerated by several years due to the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on energy markets all over the world. According to the research firm, economic relief packages contain trillions of dollars for renewable energy technology research and development as well as the deployment of low- and zero-carbon infrastructure. By 2025, Lux see the consequences of COVID-19 resulting in accelerated investment in energy storage and power-generation projects.

Ways to invest

There are several options for investment opportunities in the renewable energy markets.

Investors interested in wind energy there is the First Trust ISE Global Wind Energy Index Fund (NYSEARCA :FAN ), incepted on June 16, 2008 and tracks 48 holdings, including wind energy giants Vestas Wind Systems (OTCMKTS: VWDRY ), Boralex (TSX: BLX ) and Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (OTCMKTS: GCTAF ), to name a few. Our list of renewable energy stocks on the TSX may also be worth considering.

This is an updated version of an article first published by the Investing News Network in 2018.

Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Technology  for real-time news updates!

Securities Disclosure: I, Melissa Pistlli, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article. 

The post What Are the Advantages of Wind Energy and Solar Energy? appeared first on Investing News Network .

• clean-power
• coal-generation
• north-america
• solar-power
• utility-business

Discussions

Sign in to participate.

No discussions yet. Start a discussion below.

Related News

Sunnova Grows its VPP Network to Support the Grid and Compensate Customers

Bihar's disoms record 14% revenue growth

Natixis Closes $176.6M Financing of a c. 300MW Solar PV Plant in Peru

Dominion adding more solar farms, including two in pittsylvania county.

US government wants AI companies to improve their energy usage

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: NRC SHOULD TAKE ACTIONS TO FULLY CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Get published - build a following.

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

Start a Post »                  Learn more about posting on Energy Central »

Your access to Member Features is limited.

Subscribe today to the Daily Power Industry Newsletter for the most up-to-date and relevant utility industry news.

Chief Executive Officer Baldwin EMC Summerdale, Alabama

Director of Strategy and Performance Management Long Island Power Authority Uniondale, New York

Director of Grants Management Long Island Power Authority Uniondale, New York

Hydro Plant Compliance Electrical Engineer (III, Senior I, Senior II, Senior III) Chelan Public Utility District Wenatchee, Washington

Power Systems Analyst (Power Scheduling, Contracts and Regulatory Reporting) City of Glendale Water & Power Glendale, California

Lakeland Electric Compliance Engineer City of Lakeland Lakeland, Florida

Chief Financial Officer Commonwealth Utilities Corporation Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Chief Engineer, P.E. Commonwealth Utilities Corporation Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Director of Customer Experience Long Island Power Authority Uniondale, New York

Finance and Treasury Analyst Long Island Power Authority Uniondale, New York

Director of Budget Long Island Power Authority Uniondale, New York

Sponsors & Partners