The 25 February – 3 March 2017 issue of the Economist has a cover story entitled “Clean energy's dirty secret.” There is a lead off editorial to the issue that states that “the renewables revolution is wrecking the world's electricity markets.” This is because clean energy generation by wind and solar is erratic and requires expensive standby generation capacity from fossil fuels.
The solution, at least in large part, that the Economist suggests is to use meter technology, batteries, and frequent updates on the rapidly fluctuating cost of energy as wind and solar output fluctuates from near zero to some part of their maximum electric power output to force the demand for electricity to fluctuate as rapidly as does its generation by erratic and unreliable wind and solar power generators.
So the rich can ignore the hourly changes in the cost of their electricity, while those less well-off watch the meter informing them of the rapid changes in the cost of electricity to figure out whether they can afford to cook dinner, watch television, use their computer, use a power tool, vacuum, or use their air conditioner. So, not only are most people to pay more for their energy use due to the phantom of hysterical catastrophic man-made global warming, but many are to be forced to watch the electricity cost meter extremely diligently and to tailor their lives to its whimsical machinations.
Or we could just use our plentiful fossil fuels that also feed our plants with the carbon dioxide they require and make them very much more healthy. And we can do this with absolutely negligible effects on the temperature on the surface of the Earth. That sure would give us a better lifestyle and leave us with money and time to create important improvements in human security and happiness. This is much more sensible than having to tell Johnny that he has to stop reading or doing his homework now and turn the lights off because the wind generators cannot move due to too little or too much wind.
Where do these Progressive Elitists get this mindset that it is the height of morality to mess up the lives of others, especially those not very well off, with their many fanciful controls? How can they be so malevolent? When they say they are not malevolent but merely concerned about some bad outcome due to carbon dioxide emissions as a precautionary measure, are they not obliged to have carefully and rational examined the relevant science on that issue before they take actions that surely will hurt many people? Isn't that rational examination of the science a necessary test of anyone's benevolence and the proper exercise of the precautionary principle? First do no harm, unless it is absolutely and irrefutably necessary.