I read the article and read the comments. The article had numbers, the comments have mostly invectives. If he is wrong, could someone who is knowledgeable take

I read the article and read the comments. The article had numbers, the comments have mostly invectives. If he is wrong, could someone who is knowledgeable take his numbers and state why they are wrong? This is a honest question. I would like to have energy, ideally clean energy, uber ideally lots of clean energy. He is telling that wind and photovoltaic are not enough, by large, to replace our energy use of today. Why is he wrong? If we wanted to completely switch to green energy, would this be technically possible? (let's put the political agendas aside, I want to take this opportunity to actually make up my mind)