Over the weekend, critics blasted Washington Post for saying that switching completely to renewable electricity (such as wind and solar power) could prevent future electricity blackouts.
The Sunday Post reported on the one-year anniversary of the Texas deep freeze. This caused a five day blackout. The Post also cited a recent Stanford University study that suggested that switching to renewable energy sources and dropping all use of fossil fuels would result in a significant reduction in energy demand and prevent events such as the Texas blackout.
Stanford researchers found that switching 100% to renewable energy would lower energy consumption, reduce consumer prices, create millions of jobs, and improve people’s overall health.
Simulations were used to simulate the use of hydrogen or electric fuel cell vehicles, and the total end-use energy consumption of fossil fuels being replaced. The study also found that per capita household energy costs were 63 percent lower than in a “business as usual” scenario.
The study claimed that switching completely to renewable energy sources would create 5 million full-time, long-term jobs. However, it didn’t say how many jobs would be lost if the fossil fuel industry was completely eliminated.
Social media was used by critics to attack The Post and the study. Some suggested it was delusional, while others wondered why nuclear power wasn’t mentioned. The Post mentioned that both nuclear energy and coal sources were affected by the Texas freeze.
“Everyone [sic] should drive past one of these windmill farms and count the number of working.” One critic asked the question, while another said that the study was “a complete lie.”
Another critic suggested that Texas, which is a major oil producer, would oppose any attempts to transition to renewable energy sources.
