that article is full of gaping holes and is often used by renewable energy proponents to shut down valid criticism of renewable technologies. Here are just two

that article is full of gaping holes and is often used by renewable energy proponents to shut down valid criticism of renewable technologies. Here are just two faults with it: >First, the fluctuations in variable wind and solar PV are balanced by flexible renewable energy sources that are dispatchable, i.e. can supply power on demand. These are hydro with dams, Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGTs) and concentrated solar thermal power (CST) with thermal storage, as illustrated in Figure 2. It ‘s not essential for every power station in the system to be dispatchable. Gas turbines are flexible renewable energy? Concentrated solar power is a fringe technology that is highly dependent on geography. How this is taken seriously i do not understand. The article goes on to make a rubbish point about "green" gas while completely ignoring that gas in any form is neither "Green" nor renewable. >In the USA a major computer simulation by a large team of scientists and engineers found that 80-90% renewable electricity is technically feasible and reliable (They didn’t examine 100%.) Gee, i wonder why 100% wasn't examined. Perhaps it points to an uncomfortable conclusion that solely variable, renewable energy cannot work at scale as the sole source of energy for gigawatt scale grids. The reality is that a combination is required and this reality upsets those who believe the pie-in-the-sky dream that solar and wind can power the entire grid if you only overbuild and dispatch them. As the February event in Texas demonstrated, all generation can underperform at the same time leading to near disaster. We would be wise to hedge our bets on generation sources.