Letter | Published:

Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?

Nature Climate Change volume 2, pages 441443 (2012) | Download Citation

Abstract

A fundamental, generally implicit, assumption of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and many energy analysts is that each unit of energy supplied by non-fossil-fuel sources takes the place of a unit of energy supplied by fossil-fuel sources1,2,3,4. However, owing to the complexity of economic systems and human behaviour, it is often the case that changes aimed at reducing one type of resource consumption, either through improvements in efficiency of use or by developing substitutes, do not lead to the intended outcome when net effects are considered5,6,7,8,9. Here, I show that the average pattern across most nations of the world over the past fifty years is one where each unit of total national energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-quarter of a unit of fossil-fuel energy use and, focusing specifically on electricity, each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity. These results challenge conventional thinking in that they indicate that suppressing the use of fossil fuel will require changes other than simply technical ones such as expanding non-fossil-fuel energy production.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    IPCC Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R & Meyer, L. A.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  2. 2.

    IPCC IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).

  3. 3.

    Low-carbon electricity for 2030. Nature Clim. Change 1, 233–235 (2011).

  4. 4.

    Nuclear fallout. Nature Clim. Change 1, 69 (2011).

  5. 5.

    & The Myth of the Paperless Office (MIT Press, 2002).

  6. 6.

    , , & The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements (Earthscan, 2008).

  7. 7.

    , , & Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households. Energ. Policy 39, 3572–3581 (2011).

  8. 8.

    & The net effect of green lifestyles. Nature Clim. Change 1, 250–251 (2011).

  9. 9.

    Ecological paradoxes: William Stanley Jevons and the paperless office. Human Ecol. Rev. 13, 143–147 (2006).

  10. 10.

    Structural influences on energy production in South and East Asia, 1971–2002. Sociol. Forum 22, 532–554 (2007).

  11. 11.

    Mayhem on the Mekong. Science 333, 814–818 (2011).

  12. 12.

    Energy at the Crossroads: Global Perspectives and Uncertainties (MIT Press, 2003).

  13. 13.

    et al. The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: The pivotal role of electricity. Science 335, 53–59 (2012).

  14. 14.

    World Bank World Development Indicators. Available at . Accessed 20 July (2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank T. Koford for helpful comments.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Environmental Studies Program, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA

    • Richard York

Authors

  1. Search for Richard York in:

Contributions

R.Y. designed the research, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript.

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard York.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1451

Further reading