Alas, it is exactly the intermittent renewables that create a dependency on fossil fuels.
Unless you have nuclear or another reliable source like hydro, which you only get if you have the right topography for it.
Unless you have nuclear or another reliable source like hydro, which you only get if you have the right topography for it.
If anything, renewables help existing stock of fossil fuels last longer as you don't burn as much when renewables are generating.
There need to be assurances renewables are replacing fossil fuels rather than just adding capacity.
How can it possibly, when ""before"" (what dates and countries are we talking about?) was mostly fossil fuel anyway?
Remember that Germany, France, Spain and Poland look completely different in terms of energy mix!
* solar with no storage
* shutting down existing nuclear
* natural gas peaker plants
* making everyone to use natural gas for heating by making it much cheaper than electricity
* slowing down the EV rollout by keeping to subsidize gas and diesel
could definitely be seen as a scheme to make the fossil fuel gravy train last as long as possible.
And that's not even talking about the absolutely out there schemes that didn't succeed like hydrogen powered vehicles (with most of hydrogen coming from fossil fuels and you can theoretically switch to zero emission one but you never would have because the fossil one is always going to be cheaper because making hydrogen is difficult).
But it could also all just be incompetence.
They do renewables in some places by selling cheap fossil fuels? That’s… not doing renewables.
First of all, this is an insane statement.
> Unless you have nuclear
Second of all, with nuclear most countries will still be dependent on other countries for their fuel needs. So it doesn't solve the problem discussed here at all.