IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-99-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Winner, Loser, or Innocent Victim? Has Renewable Energy Performed As Expected?

Author

Listed:
  • Burtraw, Dallas

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Palmer, Karen

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Darmstadter, Joel

    (Resources for the Future)

  • McVeigh, James

Abstract

This study provides an evaluation of the performance of five renewable energy technologies used to generate electricity: biomass, geothermal, solar photovoltaics, solar thermal, and wind. The authors compared the actual performance of these technologies against stated projections that helped shape public policy goals over the last three decades. Their findings document a significant difference between the success of renewable technologies in penetrating the U.S. electricity generation market and in meeting cost-related goals, when compared with historic projections. In general, renewable technologies have failed to meet expectations with respect to market penetration. They have succeeded, however, in meeting or exceeding expectations with respect to their cost. To a significant degree, the difference in performance in meeting projections of penetration and cost stem from the declining price of conventional generation, which constitutes a moving baseline against which renewable technologies have had to compete.

Suggested Citation

  • Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Darmstadter, Joel & McVeigh, James, 1999. "Winner, Loser, or Innocent Victim? Has Renewable Energy Performed As Expected?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-28, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-99-28
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-99-28.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Denny Ellerman, 1998. "Note on The Seemingly Indefinite Extension of Power Plant Lives, A Panel Contribution," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Burtraw, Dallas & Evans, David A., 2003. "The Evolution of NOx Control Policy for Coal-Fired Power Plants in the United States," Discussion Papers 10645, Resources for the Future.
    2. Fleten, Stein-Erik & Näsäkkälä, Erkka, 2003. "Gas fired power plants: Investment timing, operating flexibility and abandonment," MPRA Paper 217, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2006.
    3. Curtis Carlson & Dallas Burtraw & Maureen Cropper & Karen L. Palmer, 2000. "Sulfur Dioxide Control by Electric Utilities: What Are the Gains from Trade?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(6), pages 1292-1326, December.
    4. Patrik Söderholm, 2000. "Environmental Regulations and Interfuel Substitution in the Power Sector: A Generalized Leontief Model," Energy & Environment, , vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, January.
    5. Johnstone, Nick & Managi, Shunsuke & Rodríguez, Miguel Cárdenas & Haščič, Ivan & Fujii, Hidemichi & Souchier, Martin, 2017. "Environmental policy design, innovation and efficiency gains in electricity generation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 106-115.
    6. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen, 2003. "The Paparazzi Take a Look at a Living Legend: The SO2 Cap-and-Trade Program for Power Plants in the United States," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-15, Resources for the Future.
    7. Xepapadeas, Anastasios & de Zeeuw, Aart, 1999. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-182, March.
    8. Fleten, Stein-Erik & Näsäkkälä, Erkka, 2010. "Gas-fired power plants: Investment timing, operating flexibility and CO2 capture," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 805-816, July.
    9. Nasakkala, Erkka & Fleten, Stein-Erik, 2005. "Flexibility and technology choice in gas fired power plant investments," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3-4), pages 371-393.
    10. Mayer, Peter C., 2000. "Reliability economies of scale for tropical island electric power," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 319-330, June.
    11. Joshua Linn & Erin Mastrangelo & Dallas Burtraw, 2014. "Regulating Greenhouse Gases from Coal Power Plants under the Clean Air Act," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 97-134.
    12. Puja Singhal, 2018. "Environmental Regulations: Lessons from the Command-and-Control Approach," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 124, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Naughten, Barry, 2003. "Economic assessment of combined cycle gas turbines in Australia: Some effects of microeconomic reform and technological change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 225-245, February.
    14. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen L. & Heintzelman, Martin, 2000. "Electricity Restructuring: Consequences and Opportunities for the Environment," Discussion Papers 10854, Resources for the Future.
    15. Soderholm, Patrik, 2000. "Fuel flexibility in the West European power sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 157-170, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-99-28. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.