Here is how Doug Mincer well explained it:
“Conventional methods have to stay up and running 24/7 because renewables aren’t a decisive source of energy. They’re limited by nature and this fairly unpredictable. Therefore, conventional plants have to stay up and running 24/7 and be able to jump to full capacity within seconds when nature decides to slow down the wind or block out the sun. Solar has a net production of ZERO after the sun goes down. Wind doesn’t produce a single watt if there isn’t enough wind to turn the blades. When renewable production slows down due to natural occurrences, those conventional plants have to already be at capacity to pick up the slack without a disruption to the grid. If they do as you say, we’re left with grid instability. Have you considered that or do you just blindly believe what the multi trillion dollar green energy industry tells you and neglects to tell you?
If the purpose of weak and very limited renewables is to reduce emissions from conventional power, you can’t achieve that goal without shutting down conventional. Since you can’t shut down conventional plants and still have a sustainable grid, you defeat the purpose. You also ADD a relatively massive carbon footprint to the mix by adding solar and wind to the mix. Are you even remotely aware of the carbon footprint of solar and wind? We’re not reducing dependence on carbon based fuels when conventional plants still have to run at production capacity 24/7 to support the grid. All we’re doing is wasting the energy that they’re producing on that limited amount of time per day when solar and wind produce their limited amount of energy. What you are saying would be true if you could isolate the areas of renewables from the grid and still maintain reliable service to those areas. But you can’t. Therefore, no matter how much essential vegetation we kill for space to set up solar and wind, the entire grid still needs to be supported 24/7 with conventional power. Leaving us with an effective net savings on our carbon footprint of zero. Actually, if you factor in the carbon footprint of solar and wind, you’re probably creating even more. You claim to be a realist, but you’re ignoring the realism. Again, unless you can operate the net completely independent from conventional power, which simply isn’t possible, you accomplish nothing with renewables. Conventional will provide us power when the wind is silent as a lamb and the sun has long dropped over the horizon. And in every single location that “relies” on solar and wind, there is a conventional plant up and running at wasted capacity creating just as much carbon waste to pick up the slack that renewables can’t fill.”
Studies support this conclusion, and commercially available battery technology does not change its calculus.
The alternative to conventional backup is significant occurrence of load shedding, such as experienced in South Africa.
Expensive and tenuous electric are destructive of citizen well-being and industrial activity. The Net Zero agenda should thus be vigorously opposed.