Reduced Costs - Questionable
Questionable assertion they it 'reduces costs'.
In the UK there is a levy on every electric bill which is converted into a subsidy for Wind/Wave/Tidal/Solar/Hydro/Geothermal schemes. Most of which due to the variable nature of them, are unable to supply a base load, or generate at the wrong time.
Wind - Only when it blows, and overnight generated electricity is not really needed much and is wasted
Solar - UK not a great place for Sun - It's not Texas ! It will only ever be small scale here
Wave - Due to government policies previously, under exploited
Tidal - Due to government policies previously, under exploited
Geothermal - Due to government policies, under exploited, though not as suited as say Iceland to this
Hydro - Ideally suited to the UK, but the greens don;t like as destroys large area's for the reservoirs. Indeed Wind and Hydro could work very well together with wasted overnight wind re-pumping water back into the reservoir for re-generation in the day.
As all Carbon sources burn and generate CO2, and carbon capture is crackpot mad scientist territory/technology, this is not a go-er.
Renewable do have their place, but extra safe modern Nuclear is the only solution which can provide the huge base-load without costly carbon based fuels fuel, and generating CO2 - though off-setting CO2 emissions with trillions of tree's being planted (Nature's Carbon Capture device) seems conspicuously absent as a solution
Tidal - Yes
Wave - Limited
Wind - Limited, where windy
Hydro - Yes
Nuclear - Yes, as base load
Carbon fueled oil/gas/coal - Yes, with Carbon capture via tree's
Don;t forget global energy demands will vastly increase over the next few decades, so merely replacing current consumption with Renewable s does not answer this problem - Why China is building a new Coal-fired power station every month, according to reports.
