Reply #9: California Energy Commission study contradicts you.

[PamW]

What is being said is that renewables are capable of replacing both nuclear and fossil fuel generation.
=========================================

The California Energy Commission released a study that contradicts the contention that renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels:

http://ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.pdf

The problem with renewables is that they are intermittent and not "dispatchable". That is you can't count on them to be able to deliver the amount of energy you demand. For example, land-based solar power doesn't work at night - and there's no getting around that. We do not have what the report calls ZELB - Zero Emission Load Balancing technology - a means of storing renewable generated energy so that it is available on demand. ( Pumped hydro is a ZELB technology - but the same environmentalists opposing nuclear also oppose more dams. ) Power from renewables has to be "firmed" with an energy source we can count on. The report cites natural gas as being able to "firm" renewable power. However,
the report states in one of the "key findings" on page 4 highlighted in bold:

If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy.


Take a look at the long list of distinguished scientists and policy people that authored this study.

Renewables can't solve the problem alone.

PamW