>> I read it the first time on this thread (and on every other thread I've seen it) ...
>> ... and had no need to comment on that post so didn't reply there.
... but, just to keep you happy, ...
.2>> We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition
.2>> to renewables if we decide to just build out all of our renewable alternative
.2>> and I'd prefer that we pursue that path with all haste.
I totally agree with that sentence/wish/desire/hope.
.2>> Natural gas plants make it technologically far easier to integrate large amounts
.2>> of variable energy sources like wind and solar, and, because of their low capital
.2>> cost and relatively high fuel costs they also are easier to economically displace
.2>> as more and more renewables come online.
I not only agree with that sentence but believe that it simply does not go far enough:
Without natural gas plants, it is almost impossible to integrate large amounts of variable
energy sources like wind and solar until the grid can be changed to suit.
If your claim about having "more than enough installed natural gas plants to make
the transition to renewables" is true then there is no need to build additional gas plants.
Result: Happy bunnies all around as you will be happy, I will be happy and the planet
(and all occupants) will benefit from the transition to renewables.
If there is a need to build additional gas plants then your claim is not true.
Result: Sad bunnies all around ... except for certain marketing firms who now have the
opportunity to make money pretending that this unnecessary additional gas burning
is beneficial to the planet (and all occupants).
Given the comment originally noted (in .1) from the article originally posted (in .0)
>>> "Meanwhile, the gas industry has been lobbying heavily, arguing that gas
>>> offers a cheap alternative to renewables, despite being a fossil fuel."
It makes me suspicious that the "happy bunny" option is not, in fact, true.