It is now a common consensus that there is a need to lessen the consumption of fossil fuels as they are the main cause of greenhouse gases. Electricity is one of the chief determinants of greenhouse gases emission as its generation is dominated by fossil fuels. Thus, it is imperative to decarbonize the electric power sector. The main objective of this work is, therefore, to examine the potentials to switch from fossil fuels to clean energy which comprises of nuclear power and the various renewable energy sources of solar energy, hydropower, wind energy, biofuels, and geothermal. Due to the unsuitability of the ordinary least squares (OLS) procedure in the face of severe multicollinearity, the ridge regression procedure was adopted to obtain the parameter estimates using the U.S. annual electricity sector data for the period 1985 to 2018. The results show that substantial substitution exists between clean energy and the fossil fuels of coal and natural gas in the U.S. electricity sector. The results also underscore the importance of energy resource in the process of economic growth and development of U.S. To fully harness the potentials of clean energy, the study recommends increased investment in each of the components of clean energy. This should be complemented with various policy instruments such as provisions of tax credits and feed-in tariffs for clean energy and imposition of tax on carbon consumption.
SovacoolBKSchmidPStirlingA, et al.
Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power. Nat Energy2020;
5: 928–935.
3.
DincerIAcarC.A review on clean energy solutions for better sustainability. Int J Energy Res2015;
39: 585–606.
4.
SolarinSABelloMO.Interfuel substitution, biomass consumption, economic growth, and sustainable development: evidence from Brazil. J Clean Prod2019;
211: 1357–1366.
5.
WeiMPatadiaSKammenDM.Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: how many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US?Energy Policy2010;
38: 919–931.
RogeljJMcCollumDLReisingerA, et al.
Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature2013;
493: 79–83.
9.
BerndtERWoodDO.Technology, prices, and the derived demand for energy. Rev Econ Stat1975;
57: 259–268.
10.
WessehPKJrLinBAppiahMO.Delving into Liberia’s energy economy: technical change, inter-factor and inter-fuel substitution. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2013;
24: 122–130.
11.
World Bank. World development indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
12.
FussMA.The demand for energy in Canadian manufacturing: an example of the estimation of production structures with many inputs. J Econom1977;
5: 89–116.
13.
PindyckRS.Interfuel substitution and the industrial demand for energy: an international comparison. Rev Econ Stat1979;
61: 169–179.
14.
UriND.Energy demand and interfuel substitution in India. Eur Econ Rev1979;
12: 181–190.
15.
HallVB.Major OECD country industrial sector inter-fuel substitution estimates, 1960–1979. Energy Econ1986;
8: 74–89.
16.
LinBLiuW.Estimation of energy substitution effect in China’s machinery industry-based on the corrected formula for elasticity of substitution. Energy2017;
129: 246–254.
17.
LinBAtsagliP.Inter-fuel substitution possibilities in South Africa: a translog production function approach. Energy2017;
121: 822–831.
18.
LinBTianP.Energy conservation in china’s light industry sector: evidence from inter-factor and inter-fuel substitution. J Clean Prod2017;
152: 125–133.
19.
WangXLinB.Factor and fuel substitution in China’s iron & steel industry: evidence and policy implications. J Clean Prod2017;
141: 751–759.
20.
WessehPKJrandLinB.Energy consumption, fuel substitution, technical change, and economic growth: Implications for CO2 mitigation in Egypt. Energy Policy2018;
117: 340–347.
21.
SerletisAXuL.Interfuel substitution: Evidence from the Markov switching minflex Laurent demand system with BEKK errors. Energy J2019;
40(6): 111–128.
22.
LiJXieCLongH.The roles of inter-fuel substitution and inter-market contagion in driving energy prices: Evidences from China’s coal market. Energy Econ2019;
84: 104525.
23.
LinBAbuduH.Impact of inter-fuel substitution on energy intensity in Ghana. Front Energy2020;
14: 27–41.
24.
TanRLinB.The influence of carbon tax on the ecological efficiency of china's energy intensive industries – a inter-fuel and inter-factor substitution perspective. J Environ Manage2020;
261: 110252.
25.
WessehPKJrandLinB.Energy substitution and technology costs in a transitional economy. Energy2020;
203: 117828.
26.
KimK.Elasticity of substitution of renewable energy for nuclear power: evidence from the Korean electricity industry. Nucl Eng Technol2019;
51: 1689–1695.
27.
LinBAnkrahI.Renewable energy (electricity) development in Ghana: observations, concerns, substitution possibilities, and implications for the economy. J Clean Prod2019;
233: 1396–1409.
28.
KhalidWJalilA.An econometric analysis of inter-fuel substitution in energy sector of Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2019;
26: 17021–17031.
29.
BelloMOSolarinSAYenYY.Interfuel substitution, hydroelectricity consumption and CO2 emissions mitigation in Malaysia: evidence from a transcendental logarithm (trans-log) cost function framework. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2020;
27: 17162–17174.
30.
HossainANSerletisA.A century of interfuel substitution. J Commod Mark2017;
8: 28–42.
31.
BrownSP.Natural gas vs. oil in US transportation: Will prices confer an advantage to natural gas?Energy Policy2017;
110: 210–221.
32.
MugabeDElbakidzeLZaynutdinovaG.Elasticity of substitution and technical efficiency: evidence from the US electricity generation. Appl Econ2020;
52: 1789–1805.
33.
SuhDH.Biofuel substitution and carbon dioxide emission: implication for biofuel mandate. In: Southern Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, Mobile, Alabama, 4-7 February 2017, No. 251888(No. 1377-2016-109984).
34.
JonesCT.The role of biomass in US industrial interfuel substitution. Energy Policy2014;
69: 122–126.
35.
SuhDH.Interfuel substitution and biomass use in the US industrial sector: a differential approach. Energy2016;
102: 24–30.
36.
SuhDH.Interfuel substitution effects of biofuel use on carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from the transportation sector. Appl Econ2019;
51: 3413–3422.
37.
HossainANSerletisA.Biofuel substitution in the US transportation sector. J Econ Asymmetries2020;
22: e00161.
38.
PapageorgiouCSaamMSchulteP.Substitution between clean and dirty energy inputs: a macroeconomic perspective. Rev Econ Stat2017;
99: 281–290.
39.
PavelescuFM.Some aspects of the translog production function estimation. Rom J Econ2011;
32: 41.
HoerlAE.Applications of ridge analysis to regression problems. Chem Eng Prog1962;
58: 54–59.
42.
HoerlAEKennardRW.Ridge regression: biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics1970;
12: 55–67.
43.
CevikEIYıldırımDÇDiboogluS.Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth in the US: a Markov-switching VAR analysis. Energy Environ. Epub ahead of print 12 August2020. DOI: 10.1177/0958305X20944035.
44.
SolarinSABelloMO.The impact of shale gas development on the US economy: evidence from a quantile: autoregressive distributed lag model. Energy2020;
205: 118004.
