Yea, er, that’s *thermal efficiency*, which is not the same at all as *capacity factor*.

A “future” of the rich using generators and the rest of us having to put up with constant power cuts in possible over the next few decades, certainly.

“Use less energy”

That means turning off heating and lighting. On shutting down business. On stopping people using electronics. Those are the only ways to get significant savings, and only here – you’d impoverish us, while countries like China…

The reality is that many poor people can’t get insulation – most landlords (who need to approve works) don’t care and won’t approve works, and millions are intelligible for grants because of things like living above shops. Neither can poorer people *afford* to buy newer and more energy efficient devices.

I may be wrong but I wasn’t intentionally lying. I have tried, to no avail, to find the source that told me that nuclear and coal ran at less than 50% – from what I can gather nuclear runs approx 85% of time, however, as it is a steam turbine not all of the thermal energy is converted to electrical energy, hence the output is less than 50% of potential capacity. Furthermore, studies do show that a renewable energy future is possible. It’s not really my field but In my opinion we should invest more in renewable than in fossil fuel. http://www.ecofys.com/en/info/the-energy-report/

The real key though, is to use less energy. This means better insulated homes, more energy efficient appliances and more energy efficient manufacturing and construction.

They have capacity factors well above 90%, you’re deliberately confusing running coal plants at less than their maximum (in good part due to their age here) with that. Gas plants can be ramped up very quickly, in addition. You’re lying, plain and simple.

Hydroelectric is affected seasonally, as is tidal, and wave power is subject to weather just like wind power.

That you think an order of magnitude and more is “not vastly more expensive”, that unbacked power is useful for anything other than PR… (hence wind, solar and wave is gas-backed, in practice)

One, not to any significant degree.
Two, they are often *less* environmentally friendly

The only way to make electrically powered transport environmentally friendly is to replace base load coal with nuclear. In your world, they would not be able to run much of the time, and people would be unable to rely on it. The middle class would go back to petrol cars, while the poor would just be stuffed.

Fossil fuel transport is already being replaced by electric trains, buses and cars.

Coal, gas and nuclear plants do not run at all times. Even gas has shut-downs and maintenance. Coal and nuclear run at less than 50%. Tidal, wave and hydroelectric can produce a reliable energy stream. Solar and wind less so but as part of a network would contribute. The required network wld not be vastly more expensive then the existing one.

Unbacked renewable electricity might be “cheap” (although the massive costs of managing the grid and so on will mean standing charges will be unaffordable for many), but nobody would be able to rely on it. You might “save” loads for power companies, but at the expense of workers and anyone else not able to afford battery and generator systems, or simply to hook up to a reliable grid (which I’m sure will be built out privately for the rich).

Moreover, you’re ignoring job displacement, using 100% capacity factors and your future means we’ll continue to be reliant on fossil-fuel driven transport. That your “study” also assumes some technologies will be stuck at today’s levels, while renewables advance constantly…assumption piled on assumption!