Don't worry The carbon they are going to get rid of is you

Some W/S/S makes sense. Too much raises costs and lowers reliability. The reasons are rooted in the physics of what they are, dilute and intermittent. They are far too resource intensive and chaotic to be capable of doing the heavy lifting. We need more involvement with engineers and energy infrastructure experts when implementing policies, not those that have no training or experience in any relevant field. Most of us have no idea what this vital resource requires and we should before advocating for this or that way of managing it. "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." Richard Feynman

It's clear for a lot of reasons, including materials throughput, that dilute intermittents are unsuitable to do the heavy lifting of meeting our energy needs. All energy production methods have tradeoffs, and meeting the needs of 8 going on 10 B of us will likely take all of them. Dilute intermittents are far too resource intensive and chaotic to be capable of doing the heavy lifting. There are real-life problems to scaling W&S that make it physically impossible with the technology that exists or is realistically foreseeable to supply more than a minor contribution to our energy needs. For one thing, there must be sufficient dispatchable power in order to add intermittent power effectively. Some W&S makes sense if the solid reliable infrastructure exists, and we don't overtax it coping with intermittents chaotic nature. when used moderately, some W&S can lower costs and emissions without compromising grid functionality. Too much raises costs and weakens infrastructure, cannibalizing any gains made. This is probably why we see so little progress in emmissions reduction by adding them compared to adding dense, reliable, clean sources like hydro and nuclear power. If we're serious about reducing environmental impact while providing energy security by far the most effective thing we can do is build a buttload of nuclear power. NP requires a fraction of the resources of the alternatives and provides clean, safe, reliable energy for many decades.

@@dodiewallace41 So? I mean yes of course a mixed approach is best. And even better, reducing consumption. Of course we should do all these things. Except the one point that wind and solar are resource intensive, because they are the least resource intensive energy generation we have...which is why they are an important part of the mix. It takes a lot more resources per KWH to build a nuclear or hydro facility that it does to build an equal solar/wind farm. Even if you add in battery farms to reduce the intermittency of the generation. On top of that solar and wind have the benefit of being added at the endpoint reducing grid demand, reducing land use, improving redundancy and taking "power" away from the energy oligopolies. All in wind and solar have an important role on providing cost effective generation - which could allow more nuclear and hydro projects balancing the problem that they are the most expensive forms of electricity generation. Some regions don't have water for hydro or nuclear power. Some regions don't have sun. Some regions don't have wind. Some regions don't have natural gas. Some regions don't have mass capital for large projects. Some regions have political instability and terrible safety standards. So a globally mixed solution is going to be the only solution. Solar and wind as the lowest cost and lowest emissions and lowest resource requirement solutions will be an important part of the puzzle.

@5353Jumper We're going to need a lot more energy. There are currently billions of people that do not have access to reliable, affordable energy and the comfort and security we enjoy because we do have access. They are coming on line, as they should. Then, in the first world, we are looking to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons for energy, and currently, only about 20% of our own energy is electricity. If we're thinking of reducing hydrocarbon fuel use for transportation and heating, that means a lot more electricity, yes? What can be done with dilute intermittents is very limited and comes with a high financial and environmental cost when we insist on overdependance on them. Unfortunately, many, including governments, have made the goal RE instead of energy security, affordability, and environmental protection. This is counterproductive. By far, the most effective thing we can do to meet our energy needs while minimizing environmental impact is to build a buttload of nuclear power. NP requires a fraction of the resources of the alternatives and provides clean, safe, and reliable power for many decades. We should be using it as much as possible.

@@dodiewallace41 nuclear is great, sure let's have more of it. But it is also the most expensive and nearly the most resource intensive way of generating electricity. On this point you are wrong. Total emissions it is better than gas/coal but it is also worse than many other forms of generation. And that is why it will not be adopted as the majority solution, just part of the mix. For nuclear to be affordable as a piece of the energy mix we will need cheap solutions supplementing it like wind and solar.

@5353Jumper If you were to look into it, you'd find that it is not correct. Density and lifespan are both important factors in environmental impact. The more density, the lower the resource requirements and the longer the lifespan, the lower the resource requirements as well. These are two of the reasons why physically, Dilute intermittents are extremely resource intensive compared to the alternatives, and overdependance on them raises costs financially and environmentally. Most of us have no idea what it takes to have reliable energy infrastructure. For an explanation that we don’t have to be engineers to understand this is a great resource. Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid by Meredith Angwin. I found that I had a lot of misconceptions about wind as solar as well. I had been thinking that what we needed was renewable energy when what is actually needed is clean, reliable energy. 🤦 I had assumed that a unit of power production from them meant a unit less from FF, that they were cleaner than the alternatives, that power could be stored for use when needed like water or grain, and that if we just built enough of them we could meet our energy needs without FF. All of this was absolutely wrong. Electricity is a service, not a commodity. Energy infrastructures job is to deliver power when and where needed. Intermittent and dispatchable power are not the same thing, like Uber and intermittent Uber are not the same thing. Wind and solar require far more resources per unit of power production right off the bat than the alternatives do, and they don't stand on their own, typically backed up with coal or NG. And as intermittent power sources bring increased instability to energy infrastructures job of delivering power when and where needed, we end up using far more backup than we need with stable, reliable sources. The higher the percentage of Intermittents, the greater the instability so the higher percentage of backup needed. At 20-30% capacity factor, every MW-hr of solar & wind drive 3-5x as much dispatchable build out for backup. But, since solar/wind are chaotic, they drive efficiency down, driving dispachable per MWe-hr up by 2-3x. This is probably why we've seen so little progress in emmissions reduction by adding them to our power grids compared to adding dense, reliable sources like NP and hydro power. overdependance on intermittents harms the lifespan of dispatchable power in the system. It's like the difference between running your car at a steady 70 mph or constantly stomping on the gas and then slamming on the brakes. It causes more wear and tear. I wish this wasn't so damn political and that we involved input from engineers & grid operation experts more than we do. This isn't a sporting event or a popularity contest although we act like it is. Most of us have no idea what it actually takes to run energy infrastructure and we should before advocating for this or that way of managing this essential service.

Renewable or not is utterly irrelevant. Our energy goals should be security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. RE is nothing but a misleading marketing term like all natural or chemical free. It's not being called RE that matters. Sometimes, methods we label RE are the best option. Often, they are not. Unfortunately, many, including governments, have made the goal RE instead of energy security, affordability, and environmental protection, and this is counterproductive. It's clear for a lot of reasons that dilute intermittents are unsuitable to do the heavy lifting if these are our goals.