Note: This essay was published in support of the motion. For all of the debates, see: http://economist.com/debate/archive

When it comes to cutting carbon emissions, renewables simply cannot compete with natural gas on three key issues: local opposition, cost and scale.

Before going further, let me be clear: I like renewables and have invested in them. I have 3,200 watts-worth of solar panels on the roof of my house in Austin, Texas, which provide about one-third of the electricity my family and I consume. I am bullish on solar technologies and their continuing improvement. In addition, geothermal heat pumps can save energy by using the constant temperature of the earth to increase the efficiency of home heating and cooling systems.

But solar and geothermal have a tiny fraction of the renewable energy market. The renewable that grabs the most headlines, political support—and of course, a big share of taxpayer subsidies—is wind-generated electricity. And industrial wind often gets those subsidies despite fierce opposition from rural landowners and environmental groups.

Europe now has about 450 anti-wind energy groups spread among 21 countries. (The UK alone has more than 200.) Canada has about 40 anti-wind energy groups, and America has about 150. In early November, five people were arrested near Lincoln, Maine, after they blocked a road leading to a construction site for a new wind project. Opponents are rightly concerned about the deleterious health effects of low-frequency noise as well as road building and visual blight.

Over the past year, I have interviewed—by either phone or email—homeowners in Missouri, Wisconsin, Maine, New York, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Britain, New Zealand and Australia. All of them had industrial wind projects built near their homes and all used similar language in describing the noise—noise that drove many of them to abandon their homes. Janet Warren’s complaints were typical. She and her family raise sheep near the controversial Makara, New Zealand, wind project. Via email, she told me the turbines erected near her home emit “continuous noise and vibration” which she said was resulting in “sleep deprivation causing loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects”.

Of course, there is significant opposition to natural gas drilling. And the recent breakthroughs in extracting natural gas from shale deposits will require intensive drilling in some areas. But the resistance to industrial wind energy projects far exceeds what is being seen in the gas sector.

Adoption of new energy sources always depends on cost. And the newfound abundance of natural gas is pricing higher-cost wind- and solar-generated electricity out of the market. The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently said the world may now have a 250-year supply of gas at current levels of consumption.

The abundance of gas, particularly in America, has pushed prices down, which is great for consumers but lousy for the subsidy-dependent wind business. In 2008, T. Boone Pickens, a Texas billionaire and wind promoter, declared that the natural gas price must be at least $9 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) for wind energy to be competitive. In March 2010, Mr Pickens had lowered his price, saying: “The place where it works best is with natural gas at $7.” By December, with natural gas prices below $5 per MMBtu, a chastened Mr Pickens said he was abandoning the American wind business because gas was too cheap. He is now hoping to foist the wind turbines that he has bought onto the Canadians.

Other than nuclear energy (which I favour), natural gas provides the only reliable, dispatchable, low-carbon energy source that can scale up to compete head-to-head with coal, which now provides almost one-third of global primary energy. That competition is crucial as methane produces about half as much carbon dioxide during combustion as coal.

Between 1973 and 2009, global consumption of natural gas jumped by 150%, faster than any other energy source with the exception of nuclear. By taking market share away from coal for electricity generation—which the IEA expects to increase by 80% by 2035—gas will enable far more carbon reductions than could ever be achieved with wind energy.

Indeed, the carbon dioxide emissions reductions from increased use of wind energy are likely to be so small as to be insignificant. Several studies have shown this, but let us rely on just two sources for carbon dioxide data. The American Wind Energy Association claims that producing one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity with wind energy “reduces CO2 emissions by roughly 1,200 pounds” or 0.6 tons. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, a coal-fired power plant produces about 1.12 tons per MWh while a natural gas-fired plant puts out 0.57 tons per MWh. Thus, replacing a coal-fired plant with a gas plant cuts carbon emissions by about 0.55 tons/MWh—almost exactly as much as the reduction achieved by using wind, which due to its intermittency cannot be used alone. Better still, the electricity produced by those gas-fired power plants costs far less than that produced by wind turbines.

Rural residents’ resistance to industrial wind, combined with wind energy’s high cost and inability to scale, leaves natural gas as the only reliable low-carbon, non-nuclear option for the next few decades. Rather than waste billions more on ineffective wind subsidies, policymakers should be embracing clean-burning natural gas.

Original text here: http://economist.com/debate/days/view/645