I honestly don’t even understand this argument. These arguments are based on the idea that we will be 100% renewable. I mean, maybe when the world reaches 30-40% renewable may be the time to even start thinking about the problems of a 100% renewable future.
The fact that it’s used to discourage us from solving the current, and very real problems of our majority FF present makes it even more ridiculous.
Finally, there is absolutely no reason we necessarily need to be 100% renewable. There may be a 20% fossil fuel generation future, with a bit of tree planting and other sequestration options that may be good enough. Nuclear may get cheaper by then and we could use nuclear for baseload power. Storage tech could get better and we could use that.
Literally, the last thing we need to be worrying about right now is a 100% renewable future, yet, that’s what dominates renewable energy discussions.
I agree with you on most point (even though you miss another key point: consumption reduction), my argument about the issue with 100% renewable isn't a criticism of renewable as a whole: it's a criticism of this particular article which explicitly talks about going 100% renewable!
What I dislike of criticism like this is, that it always operates on the underlying assumption that they have no idea what they are doing. Implying only the critics know how to calculate things and everybody who does renewable energy is fueled by blind ideology and therefore doesn't even bother.
Unless one knows the scottish plans this kind of criticism only brings one closer to becoming an armchair expert. So instead of actually pointing out a meaningful risk someone didn't calculate for in service of society, ones criticism becomes pure agitation and propaganda to the detrement of it.
And over time what started from a honest doubt can be quite dangerous, as can be observed in alternative medicine, where people first formulated their unease about aspects of the modern medical practise and moved quite rapidely to disregarding it completely and selling people sugar as medicine with real consequences.
It never relied on the assumption that they don't know what they are doing: they know it pretty well it has an economic cost in exchange for a political edge, and they know it only works if they are doing it first. And the criticism stays valid.
> this kind of criticism only brings one closer to becoming an armchair expert. So instead of actually pointing out a meaningful risk someone didn't calculate for in service of society, ones criticism becomes pure agitation and propaganda to the detrement of it.
I know the energy sector pretty well for multiple reasons and two years ago, I spent two weeks aggregating data and modelling the outcome of a full transition to renewable in the case of France[1] so I don't think I deserve your personal attack here.
The fact that it’s used to discourage us from solving the current, and very real problems of our majority FF present makes it even more ridiculous.
Finally, there is absolutely no reason we necessarily need to be 100% renewable. There may be a 20% fossil fuel generation future, with a bit of tree planting and other sequestration options that may be good enough. Nuclear may get cheaper by then and we could use nuclear for baseload power. Storage tech could get better and we could use that.
Literally, the last thing we need to be worrying about right now is a 100% renewable future, yet, that’s what dominates renewable energy discussions.