You can’t just toss around the term “renewables,” it has no meaning. It really doesn’t. In addition to it having no meaning, the term is often conflated with “good” which again doesn’t follow from the definition. In any case, in today’s episode, this is your reminder that if you want to have intermittent and poorly dispatchable “renewables” as a major portion of your energy sector, then you “need” to have reliable backup and battery sources to be on the ready. That tends to undo much/all/more of the “sustainability” that was created in the first place. And remember that this totally leaves out the fact (remember those cute things!) that it takes resources to build and maintain and dispose of renewables too, often toxic and harmful ones.
In any case, Michael Schellenberger shares:
France is a perfect example. After investing $33 billion during the last decade to add more solar and wind to the grid, France now uses less nuclear and more natural gas than before, leading to higher electricity prices and more carbon-intensive electricity.
Here are his sources:
(1) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwibi7m8l5nuAhWwmuAKHQbnBGcQFjAAegQIBBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cre.fr%2Fcontent%2Fdownload%2F10970%2F105640&usg=AOvVaw0wSNKQRakz8DyQiIiBpO0J
(2) “The French grid operator RTE France publishes hourly historical data for electricity production from 2012 onward, including an hourly carbon inten sity rate useful for calculating annual carbon intensity averages. Since carbon intensity hit a minimum of 41 grams of CO, in 2014, much higher power pro duction from natural gas, wind, and solar electricity has accompanied declin ing nuclear power production.”
