IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rffdps/10627.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • McVeigh, James
  • Burtraw, Dallas
  • Darmstadter, Joel
  • Palmer, Karen L.

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. We compared the actual performance of these technologies against stated projections that helped shape public policy goals over the last three decades. Our 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

  • McVeigh, James & Burtraw, Dallas & Darmstadter, Joel & Palmer, Karen L., 1999. "Winner, Loser, or Innocent Victim? Has Renewable Energy Performed As Expected?," Discussion Papers 10627, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10627
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10627/files/dp990028.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10627?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:aen:journl:1998v19-02-a07 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:rffdps:10627. 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: AgEcon Search (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.