Reply #31: The link takes you to the parent of this subthread.

[kristopher]

In fact the post you responded to, #25, is a very specific reference back to that thread.

"I'll repeat it yet again - we've been operating grids for over 100 years and we understand extremely well how they work. Your claim is nothing more than a sham. So yes, the burden of proof is on you to provide some shred of evidence that the body of knowledge we have accumulated over that time is somehow wrong or lacking in enough depth to support your contention.

Come on, Neds, it shouldn't be hard to find some peer reviewed literature that supports your assertions that a renewable grid will not work. I mean, after all, that is the fundamental claim that would make it far easier for you climate deniers to maintain the status quo -and with all that coal, oil and nuclear money being spent to do just that it is literally inconceivable that such work hasn't been produced if it had the least chance of getting through peer review.

And yet, it doesn't exist.

That isn't even strange.