Response to 'Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems'

TL;DR

This paper critically examines a review claiming 100% renewable energy systems are infeasible, arguing that the review's criteria are overly restrictive and that renewable systems are actually feasible and economically viable.

Contribution

The authors challenge the methodology of the review, showing that renewable energy systems are feasible and cost-effective, contrary to the review's conclusions.

Findings

Review's feasibility criteria are easily addressed at low cost

Renewable energy systems are already economically viable

Nuclear power faces genuine resource and technological challenges

Abstract

A recent article 'Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems' claims that many studies of 100% renewable electricity systems do not demonstrate sufficient technical feasibility, according to the criteria of the article's authors (henceforth 'the authors'). Here we analyse the authors' methodology and find it problematic. The feasibility criteria chosen by the authors are important, but are also easily addressed at low economic cost, while not affecting the main conclusions of the reviewed studies and certainly not affecting their technical feasibility. A more thorough review reveals that all of the issues have already been addressed in the engineering and modelling literature. Nuclear power, which the authors have evaluated positively elsewhere, faces other, genuine feasibility problems, such as the finiteness of uranium resources and a reliance on unproven technologies in the medium- to long-term. Energy systems based on renewables, on the other hand, are not only feasible, but already economically viable and decreasing in cost every year.