Renewable energy in the United States

Renewable energy technologies encompass a broad, diverse array of technologies, including solar photovoltaics, solar thermal power plants and heating/cooling systems, wind farms, hydroelectricity, geothermal power plants, and ocean power systems and the use of biomass.

The report Outlook On Renewable Energy In America explains that America needs renewable energy, for many reasons:

America needs energy that is secure, reliable, improves public health, protects the environment, addresses climate change, creates jobs, and provides technological leadership. America needs renewable energy. If renewable energy is to be developed to its full potential, America will need coordinated, sustained federal and state policies that expand renewable energy markets; promote and deploy new technology; and provide appropriate opportunities to encourage renewable energy use in all critical energy market sectors: wholesale and distributed electricity generation, thermal energy applications, and transportation.[15]

Another benefit of some renewable energy technologies, like wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) is that they require little or no water to generate electricity whereas thermoelectric (fossil fuel-based) power plants require vast amounts of water for operation.

In 2009, President Barack Obama in the inaugural address called for the expanded use of renewable energy to meet the twin challenges of energy security and climate change. Those were the first references ever to the nation's energy use, to renewable resources, and to climate change in an inauguration speech of a United States president. President Obama looked to the near future, saying that as a nation, the United States will "harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories."[16]

The president's New Energy For America plan calls for a federal investment of $150 billion over the next decade to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. Specifically, the plan calls for renewable energy to supply 10% of the nation's electricity by 2012, rising to 25% by 2025.[16]

In his joint address to Congress in 2009, Obama stated that: "We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century.... Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years... It is time for America to lead again".[17]

As of 2011, new evidence has emerged that there are considerable risks associated with traditional energy sources, and that major changes to the mix of energy technologies is needed:

Several mining tragedies globally have underscored the human toll of the coal supply chain. New EPA initiatives targeting air toxins, coal ash, and effluent releases highlight the environmental impacts of coal and the cost of addressing them with control technologies. The use of fracking in natural gas exploration is coming under scrutiny, with evidence of groundwater contamination and greenhouse gas emissions. Concerns are increasing about the vast amounts of water used at coal-fired and nuclear power plants, particularly in regions of the country facing water shortages. Events at the Fukushima nuclear plant have renewed doubts about the ability to operate large numbers of nuclear plants safely over the long term. Further, cost estimates for “next generation” nuclear units continue to climb, and lenders are unwilling to finance these plants without taxpayer guarantees.[18]

Between 2010 and 2020, the cost of wind, solar, and natural gas dropped dramatically.[20] In 2018, EIA expected that, after rising by 2.7% in 2018, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions would decrease by 2.5% in 2019 and by 1.0% in 2020[21] due to a shift away from coal and toward renewables and natural gas.

Renewable energy has the potential to reduce CO₂ emissions in three key energy use sectors: transport, heating and cooling (including building heating and air conditioning, industrial heat usage, etc.), and electricity. The year 2018 had been a peak year for the use of air conditioning, which was expected to decline.[21]

Using data from Electric Power Annual 2018[31] capacity projections, the expected changes in generating capabilities for renewable fuel sources would result in an increase of 55.873 GW of capacity coming on-line by the beginning of 2024. This would make a total of 277.77 gigawatts of renewable available by 2024 up 23.1% from 2018. Using this generating capability and the capacity factors from 2018 data will result in a total of 798.19 terawatt-hours (TWh) of renewable electric energy in 2023. This would be up 61.84 TWh (+8.3%) from 2018.

The U.S. Department of Energy stated (in 2006) that more than 1.5 million homes and businesses were currently using solar water heating in the United States, representing a capacity of over 1,000 megawatts (MW) of thermal energy generation. It predicted that another 400 MW was likely to be installed over the next 3–5 years.

Assuming that 40 percent of existing homes in the United States have adequate access to sunlight, 29 million solar water heaters could be installed.[68]

Solar water heaters can operate in any climate. Performance varies depending on how much solar energy is available at the site, as well as how cold the water coming into the system is. The colder the water, the more efficiently the system operates.[68]

Solar water heaters reduce the need for conventional water heating by about two-thirds and pay for their installation within 4 to 8 years with electricity or natural gas savings. Compared to those with electric water heaters, Florida homeowners with solar water heaters save 50 to 85 percent on their water heating bills, according to the Florida Solar Energy Center.[68]

Information on pump, California

Many cars sold in the U.S. since 2001 are able to run on blends of up to 15% ethanol.[69] Older cars in the United States can run on blends of up to 10% ethanol. Motor vehicle manufacturers already produce vehicles designed to run on much higher ethanol blends. Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and GM are among the automobile companies that sell “flexible-fuel” cars, trucks, and minivans that can use gasoline and ethanol blends ranging from pure gasoline up to 85% ethanol (E85). By mid-2006, there were approximately 6 million E85-compatible vehicles on the road.[70]

Ninety-five percent of gasoline sold in the U.S.(2016) is blended with 10% ethanol.[71] There are challenges in moving to higher blends, however. Flex-fuel vehicles are assisting in this transition because they allow drivers to choose different fuels based on price and availability. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which calls for 15.2 billion US gallons (58,000,000 m³) of biofuels to be used annually by 2012, will also help to expand the market.[70] The USDA in 2015 began offering grants to help gasoline retailers install blender pumps for dispensing mid-level ethanol blends.[72]

The expanding ethanol and biodiesel industries are providing jobs in plant construction, operations, and maintenance, mostly in rural communities. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol industry created almost 154,000 jobs in 2005 alone, boosting household income by $5.7 billion. It also contributed about $3.5 billion in tax revenues at the local, state, and federal levels.[70] On the other hand, in 2010, the biofuel industry received $6.64 billion in federal government support.[73]

There are numerous organizations within the academic, federal, and commercial sectors conducting large-scale advanced research in the field of renewable energy. This research spans several areas of focus across the renewable energy spectrum. Most of the research is targeted at improving efficiency and increasing overall energy yields.[74] Multiple federally supported research organizations have focused on renewable energy in recent years. Two of the most prominent of these labs are Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), both of which are funded by the United States Department of Energy and supported by various corporate partners.[75] Sandia has a total budget of $2.4 billion[76] while NREL has a budget of $375 million.[77]

Both the SNL and the NREL, have heavily funded solar research programs. BP was also heavily invested in solar research programs until 2008 when the company began scaling back its solar operations.[78] The company finally shut down its forty-year-old solar business after executives decided solar power production is not economically competitive.[78] The NREL solar program has a budget of around $75 million[79] and develops research projects in the areas of photovoltaic (PV) technology, solar thermal energy, and solar radiation.[80] The budget for Sandia's solar division is unknown, however it accounts for a significant percentage of the laboratory's $2.4 billion budget.[81] Several academic programs have focused on solar research in recent years. The Solar Energy Research Center (SERC) at University of North Carolina (UNC) has the sole purpose of developing cost effective solar technology. In 2008, researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) developed a method to store solar energy by using it to produce hydrogen fuel from water.[82] Such research is targeted at addressing the obstacle that solar development faces of storing energy for use during nighttime hours when the sun is not shining. In February 2012, North Carolina-based Semprius Inc., a solar development company backed by German corporation Siemens, announced that they had developed the world's most efficient solar panel. The company claims that the prototype converts 33.9% of the sunlight that hits it to electricity, more than double the previous high-end conversion rate.[83]

Wind energy research dates back several decades to the 1970s when NASA developed an analytical model to predict wind turbine power generation during high winds.[84] Today, both the SNL and NREL have programs dedicated to wind research. Sandia's laboratory focuses on the advancement of materials, aerodynamics, and sensors.[85] The NREL wind projects are centered on improving wind plant power production, reducing their capital costs, and making wind energy more cost effective overall.[86] The Field Laboratory for Optimized Wind Energy (FLOWE) at Caltech was established to research renewable approaches to wind energy farming technology practices that have the potential to reduce the cost, size, and environmental impact of wind energy production.[87]

As the primary source of biofuels in North America, many organizations are conducting research in the area of ethanol production. On the Federal level, the USDA conducts a large amount of research regarding ethanol production in the United States. Much of this research is targeted toward the effect of ethanol production on domestic food markets.[88] The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has conducted various ethanol research projects, mainly in the area of cellulosic ethanol.[89] Cellulosic ethanol has many benefits over traditional corn-based ethanol. It does not take away or directly conflict with the food supply because it is produced from wood, grasses, or non-edible parts of plants.[90] Moreover, some studies have shown cellulosic ethanol to be more cost effective and economically sustainable than corn-based ethanol.[91] Sandia National Laboratories conducts in-house cellulosic ethanol research[92] and is also a member of the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI), a research institute founded by the United States Department of Energy with the goal of developing cellulosic biofuels.[93]

Over $1 billion of federal money has been spent on the research and development of hydrogen fuel in the United States.[94] Both the NREL[95] and SNL[96] have departments dedicated to hydrogen research.

Accurate estimates regarding job creation as a result of an increasing reliance on renewable energy in the United States are challenging to predict due to unforeseen technological developments, uncertainty surrounding the United States’ future import/export levels of renewable energy technology, and ambiguity regarding indirect and induced employment effects. That being said, however, it is very likely that the United States would see a net increase in employment in the energy sector as a result of a renewable energy transition.[97][98][99] A study performed by Wei, Patadia, and Kammen about renewable energy efficiency in the United States found that the renewable energy sector generates significantly more jobs than the fossil fuel sector based on the per energy unit delivered.[99][100][101] The renewable energies found to have the highest employment per energy unit generated ratios are solar and wind; this is likely due to their installation components.[99] Although net employment would vary per location within the U.S. (for example, West Virginia's net employment would be more adversely impacted than California's due to West Virginia's coal mining industry), in total, net employment in the energy sector within the U.S. is projected to considerably increase.[99] The increase in direct employment as well as increased renewable energy infrastructure would naturally lead to additional indirect and induced jobs as well.

Research done on countries in the European Union has affirmed this positive net employment notion. Towards a green energy economy? Tracking the employment effects of low-carbon technologies in the European Union, a study done by Markandya et al. used a multi-regional input-output model in conjunction with the World Input-Output Database to analyze data from 1995 - 2009 in search of net employment impacts.[98] These years were specifically considered as the European Union's energy structure was shifting significantly towards gas and other renewable forms of energy during this time. Although the country specific affects varied, it was found that 530,000 jobs overall were netted from the transition during this timeframe.[98] Another study done on Germany by Lehr, Lutz, and Edler used the PANTA RHEI model to evaluate the German energy situation by taking positive and negative renewable energy impacts into account.[99] The model considered different assumptions for fossil fuel prices, domestic installations, international trade, and German exports to developing renewable energy world markets. Under almost all of the scenarios, positive net employment effects were exhibited.[99]

Acceptance of wind and solar facilities in one's community is stronger among Democrats (blue), while acceptance of nuclear power plants is stronger among Republicans (red).[102]

According to a 2019 CBS News poll on 2,143 U.S. residents, 42% of American adults under 45 years old thought that the U.S. could realistically transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050 while 29% deemed it unrealistic and 29% were unsure. Those numbers for older Americans are 34%, 40%, and 25%, respectively. Differences in opinion might be due to education as younger Americans are more likely to have been taught about climate change in schools than their elders.[103]

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires all public electric utilities to facilitate net metering.[104] This allows homes and businesses performing distributed generation to pay only the net cost of electricity from the grid: electricity used minus electricity produced locally and sent back into the grid. For intermittent renewable energy sources this effectively uses the grid as a battery to smooth over lulls and fill in production gaps.

Some jurisdictions go one step further and have instituted feed-in tariff, which allows any power customer to actually make money by producing more renewable energy than is consumed locally.

From 2006 to 2014, US households received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other "clean energy" investments. These tax expenditures went predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile received about 60%. The most extreme is the program aimed at electric vehicles, where the top income quintile received about 90% of all credits. Market mechanisms have less skewed distributional effects.[105]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included more than $70 billion in direct spending and tax credits for clean energy and associated transportation programs. This policy-stimulus combination represents the largest federal commitment in United States history for renewable energy, advanced transportation, and energy conservation initiatives. These new initiatives were expected to encourage many more utilities to strengthen their clean energy programs.[106] While the Department of Energy has come under criticism for providing loan guarantees to Solyndra,[107] its SunShot initiative has funded successful companies such as EnergySage[108] and Zep Solar.[109]

In his January 24, 2012, State of the Union address, President Barack Obama restated his commitment to renewable energy, stating that he “will not walk away from the promise of clean energy.” Obama called for a commitment by the Defense Department to purchase 1,000 MW of renewable energy. He also mentioned the long-standing Interior Department commitment to permit 10,000 MW of renewable energy projects on public land in 2012.[12]

Some Environmental Protection Agency facilities in the United States use renewable energy for all or part of their supply at the following facilities.[110]

Energy technologies receive government subsidies. In 2016, federal government energy-specific subsidies and supports for renewables, fossil fuels, and nuclear energy were $6,682 million, $489 million and $365 million, respectively. [111] All but a few U.S. states now have incentives in place to promote renewable energy, while more than a dozen have enacted new renewable energy laws in recent years.[29] Renewable energy suffered a political setback in the United States in September 2011 with the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a company that had received a $535 million federal loan guarantee.[112][113]

Net metering

This section is an excerpt from Net metering in the United States.[edit]

Growth of net metering in the United States

Net metering is a policy by many states in the United States designed to help the adoption of renewable energy. Net metering was pioneered in the United States as a way to allow solar and wind to provide electricity whenever available and allow use of that electricity whenever it was needed, beginning with utilities in Idaho in 1980, and in Arizona in 1981.[114] In 1983, Minnesota passed the first state net metering law.[115] As of March 2015, 44 states and Washington, D.C. have developed mandatory net metering rules for at least some utilities.[116] However, although the states' rules are clear, few utilities actually compensate at full retail rates.[117]

Net metering policies are determined by states, which have set policies varying on a number of key dimensions. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required state electricity regulators to "consider" (but not necessarily implement) rules that mandate public electric utilities make net metering available to their customers upon request.[118] Several legislative bills have been proposed to institute a federal standard limit on net metering. They range from H.R. 729, which sets a net metering cap at 2% of forecasted aggregate customer peak demand, to H.R. 1945, which has no aggregate cap, but does limit residential users to 10 kW, a low limit compared to many states, such as New Mexico, with an 80,000 kW limit, or states such as Arizona, Colorado, New Jersey, and Ohio, which limit as a percentage of load.[119]

Green Power Partnership

The EPA named the top 20 partners in its Green Power Partnership that are generating their own renewable energy on-site. Combined, they generate more than 736 million kilowatt-hours of renewable energy on-site each year, enough to power more than 61,000 average U.S. homes.[127]

Selected state renewable portfolio standards with 2018 revisions. 29 states have adopted policies targeting a percentage of their energy to come from renewable sources.

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), is a non-profit organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 2001 as a unifying forum for bringing renewable energy into the mainstream of America's economy and lifestyle. In 2010 ACORE had over 700 member organizations.[128] In 2007, ACORE published Outlook On Renewable Energy In America, a two volume report about the future of renewable energy in the United States.[129] It has been said that this report exposes a "new reality for renewable energy in America."[130]

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) is a non-profit organization which promotes environmentally sustainable societies. Founded in 1984 by a group of Congressional Members, EESI seeks to be a catalyst that moves society away from environmentally damaging fossil fuels and toward a clean energy future. EESI presents policy solutions that will result in decreased global warming and air pollution; improvements in public health, energy security and rural economic development opportunities; increased use of renewable energy sources and improved energy efficiency.

An important part of the mission of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is the transfer of NREL-developed technologies to renewable energy markets. NREL's Technology Transfer Office supports laboratory scientists and engineers in the successful and practical application of their expertise and the technologies they develop. R&D staff and facilities are recognized and valued by industry, as demonstrated through many collaborative research projects and licensed technologies with public and private partners. NREL's innovative technologies have also been recognized with 39 R&D 100 Awards.

The Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) is an organization dedicated to research, publication, consulting, and lecturing in the general field of sustainability, with a special focus on profitable innovations for energy and resource efficiency. RMI is headquartered in Snowmass, Colorado, and also maintains offices in Boulder, Colorado. RMI is the publisher of the book Winning the Oil Endgame.

Community renewable energy efforts incorporate calls for energy democracy to place the responsibility of the planning and implementation processes of a renewable energy project within a community.[131] Community based renewable energy projects are expected to have a wide range of positive social impacts on top of decreasing fossil fuel usage, such as “acceptance of renewable energy developments; awareness of renewable and sustainable energy technologies and issues; uptake of low carbon technologies; and sustainable/pro-environmental behavior”.[132] However, in a survey conducted within a community about community renewable energy projects, results showed that while there was widespread support for implementation, there were low levels of desire for personal involvement, meaning many people shied away from potentially serving as project leaders.[132] Often times, the degree of ownership is debated within the planning process.[133]

Community renewable energy projects prioritize the participation of the end-user communities, challenging the traditional power structures of renewable energy projects. Community renewable energy projects, and the slew of positive social impacts often associated with them, are only successful with institutional support.[132] Scholarships highlights the prevalence of institutional support in the EU and the UK for community based renewable energy, and not surprisingly, there are many more successful projects in Europe than there are in the United States.[134] Existing literature shows a clear lack of institutional support for community-based renewable energy projects within the United States. However, market-based investments in fields such as community-based solar and wind projects are evident in the US. The private sector has especially increased interest in community solar energy projects within the past couple of years.[135] The differing approaches to community-based renewable energy projects globally may be attributed to the differences within the liberal welfare states of Europe compared to the United States.

The United States has the potential of installing 11 terawatt (TW) of onshore wind power and 4 TW of offshore wind power, capable of generating over 47,000 TWh. The potential for concentrated solar power in the southwest is estimated at 10 to 20 TW, capable of generating over 10,000 TWh.[136]

A 2012 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory evaluates the potential energy resources for each state of the United States.[137][138]

In 2010, the United States used 3,754 TWh of electricity. Total energy used in 2010 was 28,800 TWh (98.16 quadrillion BTU), with over 30% thermal losses .

Note: Total use is inflated to create an oil equivalence.

• American Council on Renewable Energy
• Catching the Sun (film)
• Energy conservation in the United States
• Efficient energy use
• Energy policy of the United States
• Lists of renewable energy topics
• List of wind farms in the United States
• List of U.S. states by electricity production from renewable sources
• Renewable energy by country
• Renewable energy commercialization
• Little Box Challenge

• GA Mansoori, N Enayati, LB Agyarko (2016), Energy: Sources, Utilization, Legislation, Sustainability, Illinois as Model State, World Sci. Pub. Co., ISBN 978-981-4704-00-7
• Clean Tech Nation: How the U.S. Can Lead in the New Global Economy (2012) by Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder
• Deploying Renewables 2011 (2011) by the International Energy Agency
• Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era (2011) by Amory Lovins
• Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs (December 14, 2016) by the Congressional Research Service
• Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (2011) by the IPCC
• Solar Energy Perspectives (2011) by the International Energy Agency

• U.S. Renewable Energy Factsheet by the University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Systems