Build more resources in areas with more consisten sunshine or consistent wind. Put solar panels in space. Build nuke plants. Build fusion plants. Just stop burning fossil fuels as quickly as you can.Neither can a gas turbine or a coal furnace.
Yeah, but the coal or gas plant isn't going to be fluctuating up and down on its own
when it gets cloudy or calm, while the demand remains constant.
Why not? They use no fuel.Weather forecasts will give you far more than one hour's warning.
Again, when the 4 hour forecast shows your solar input is going to drop 30% (or whatever),
how is your other green energy going to ramp up? Unless you're burning biomass. Are you?
You can go to the wind field in the next state or the solar field in the next county that happens to be sitting in full sunshine.
How much extra capacity are you building into these out of state wind and solar fields
Are they going to be twice as big, in case you need some extra juice? Three times?
Your original core argument was that it had limits. Well so does natural gas and nuclear and everything else. All of these problems are soluble and the only reason you don't think so is that you see no need to build alternatives in the first place. You think its ALL a waste of money.Just pointing out that the core of your criticism here of wind and solar applies equally to every other means of generating power.
Equally?
When is a cloudy day or a calm day going to cut nat gas power by 30%? Or nuclear or coal?