70%, 80%, 99.9%, 100% Renewables — Study Central

Solar panel, wind turbine & globe via Shutterstock

A number of research teams have tackled the whole “how much could (or should) renewable energy power our grid?” question. Of course, the regions studied, goals of the studies, technology assumptions, and other parameters have varied, so the studies come to various conclusions. Here are some of the most notable studies I’ve seen:

Country-, region-, city-, county-, and mode-specific studies can also be found here.

Of course, there are already countries getting high penetration levels of wind and solar power:

“Comparing finite and renewable planetary energy reserves (Terawatt‐years). Total recoverable reserves are shown for the finite resources. Yearly potential is shown for the renewables.”

Finite energy reserves and annual renewable planetary energy reserves (Terawatt‐years). In other words, total known and recoverable reserves are shown for the finite resources (coal, uranium, petroleum, and natural gas), while yearly potential is shown for the renewables.

And for some studies on the theoretical potential of renewable energy, you can also check out:

Image Credit: Solar panel, wind turbine & globe via Shutterstock



  • Green_Mom

    This page is so helpful. Thanks for compiling the studies in one place.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Great! Thank You. :D

  • Otis11

    “The Coal For Uruguay” => “The Goal For Uruguay”

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      yikes, bit of a different meaning there. thanks, sharp eyes.

  • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

    @google-81ed4c99f329fa148d40e110fe17af07:disqus & @AEman:disqus: Agreed (120%). This isn’t a page about solving the problem, but simply about studies that have looked into renewable grid or even grid + transport penetration.

    • Bob_Wallace

      We need a summary sentence or three for each….

      • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

        Good call.

  • http://www.energyquicksand.com/ Edward Kerr

    Zach,
    I have to agree with James W here. 100% has to be a floor. Then we also have to deal directly with the methane that has begun venting from the arctic. We will also need to find a way to lower the CO2 but that is a technical problem that is waiting for a political consensus. But aren’t all of our problems a result of the lack of a political will? We’ve known for decades what has to be done but only a grudging little has occurred.

    • Fletch

      you said it….lack of political will. Isn’t it another term for laziness?

      • http://www.energyquicksand.com/ Edward Kerr

        Considering what is causing the discord in congress (corrupted by money from vested interests) I’d call it criminality as adverse to simple laziness.

  • James Wimberley

    You miss out 120%. That’s for the massive carbon sequestration required by Hansen’s 350 ppm of CO2 objective. He may be wrong. but it’s a serious analysis and proposal. 80% renewable is not. As a matter of logic, to stabilise the climate we must at least go carbon-neutral. So 100% renewable is the floor, not he ceiling.