The ‘greens” and their statist allies (who want to maximize government control over everything) tell us that switching to “renewable” energy sources (primarily wind and solar) as soon as possible is essential.
Is that wise?
No. That’s because we cannot depend on wind and solar. When we experience periods of dense cloud cover, windlessness, and cold, we’ll be without power when we most need it.
That’s the point Jon Sanders makes in this AIER article.
He writes, “The thought that American electricity consumers, families with small children, people who need breathing machines, poor parents who just made their one grocery run of the pay period, schools, nursing facilities, and hospitals, would have to live in dread of dull days is an abomination. But for environmentalists and renewable energy zealots who want zero-emissions electricity generation without the dependability (or efficient land use) of zero-emissions nuclear, it’s a necessity.”
Sanders is right. We will have periods when there are not enough wind and solar rays to keep things running. I suppose the green zealots will say that suffering and death are regrettable but necessary to save the planet.
I want to suggest a far worse scenario, akin to the “Year Without a Summer.” It was 1816, and there were widespread crop failures due to the massive volcanic eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815. Even worse was the year 536, when a volcanic eruption (probably in Iceland) led to starvation across Europe because ash clouds blocked out so much sunlight.
Suppose that something like that was to happen after we’ve gone all green?