|
|
|
|
|
|
by PraetorianGourd
1135 days ago
|
|
|
No, that isn’t the case. The article did not try to imply that green energy is to blame. But let’s pretend it did, is that not a perspective we should analyze? If we are going to actively restrict sources of energy, we should quantify the externalities. Not to convince anyone that we shouldn’t take those steps, but because these are real trade-offs with real costs. I’m sure that someone who earnestly feels that climate change is an immediate existential threat would welcome the analysis. |
|
|
The point of this article was to reinforce the idea that cheap energy is important to a safe and stable society, which is true, but it ties into their overall narrative that green energy in its current form is inconsistent and poses a danger to our grid. Which is why the parent comment immediately had this reaction.
> is that not a perspective we should analyze?
Yes, it is, and it would be foolish to think that the green energy sector is not tackling this already. We are all familiar with the famous "duck curve" and when energy is in demand at certain parts of the day there is a market opportunity. There are tons of companies in the storage and arbitrage space using batteries, flywheels, whatever.
The Economist does not engage with this argument in good faith, it usually just does basic concern trolling. They will point out the issue with renewables, and they oftentimes wont outright give any possible solutions, but their implication is clear. They are a newspaper for the enforcement of the status quo after all.