Letter to the editor: Renewables vs. fossil fuels

A popular current subject is the dramatically reduced cost of installing renewable energy such as solar and wind. In fact, there are claims that new renewables are less expensive than installing fossil- fueled power stations.

However, one big difference exists between the two. The difference is that fossil-fueled stations are “dispatchable.” That means their output can be dispatched (or added as needed) and modified to match electrical demand on the grid. Renewables cannot be dispatched and need large storage systems that are either extremely costly or have not yet been developed.

Those of us living in the greatest country of the world do not want to depend on wind or sun before cooling our home, washing clothes/dishes, cooking or watching television. While we, as only 4% of the world’s population, are shuttering fossil-fuel plants and planning to make unnecessary energy sacrifices, five countries (China, India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam) are building or planning 600 coal-fired plants.

We cannot provide any CO2 reduction unilaterally, and such efforts to do so will only weaken our country and its ability to expand domestic production. We will be crippling our industry and our ability to compete in the world.

John Lapina

Hempfield