Renewables are probably going to "run out of steam", so to speak (that's a little bit of geothermal humor there) far sooner than most proponents think, for a variety of reasons. If you're well-informed on these matters then you already know what I'm talking about. But like so many other things these days, what you generally see in the press and on proponents' web sites is often full of lies and half-truths, so you have to be careful to try and look past those.

I understand that renewables costs and storage costs have declined dramatically lately and will probably continue to do so at least for a while longer, but that's only half the story. There are subsidy issues and premature end-of-life issues and reliability/deliverability/supply-demand issues and so on. But the biggest issue has to do with that 25% thing, where in reality you're potentially going to have to massively overbuild your wind and solar if you expect those to deliver as promised.(1) And even then you're probably going to have to deal with storage costs, too, be that battery or pumped hydro or whatever. So any claims that renewables are "super cheap" (cheaper than existing power-generating facilities) right now are basically bogus, if you look at the overall picture. Renewables still have a long way to go to fulfill their promises, in other words, if they ever actually even come close to doing so. I could give you local, real-world examples of this stuff if you want, but I don't want to bore you.

Even if you run with the theory that existing power plants can (and maybe should only) be used intermittently as backups for renewables when those can't deliver, now you have another economic problem because that probably puts you back into "peaking rates" territory, and those rates are generally hugely expensive. And you'd have to add those onto the costs of the renewables themselves.

To sum up, though, whenever you see a claim that a solar plant or whatever can produce X megawatts at a very low Y cents per KWH, the reality is going to be more like it can only provide a fraction of those megawatts and only at a multiple of those cents per KWH, if it can actually reliably produce much power on a fairly continuous basis at all. Overall you'd probably be much better off to go with more nuclear, but nuclear is still a bad word to a lot of people these days. (Fun fact: One reason why we have so much fossil-fueled power these days to begin with is because there was so much opposition to nuclear back in the day, mostly by the same type of folks who are so opposed to fossil fuels today.)

As to anthropogenic global climate change, I think they're making a mountain out of a molehill. There's a whole lot of pertinent stuff that they frankly just choose to ignore, and they've somehow become overly fixated on CO2 as the end-all, be-all of what controls the climate. (This over-fixation notion is not completely true but it's true enough.) And to that end they now point their guns at the fossil fuel companies as evil incarnate, when the truth is more like they're just deep pockets in their eyes. Also, an awful lot of the "data" that they're using to make those claims and produce those dire predictions is mostly just made up, or has other major problems with it. Once again, I could give you local, real-world examples of this stuff if you want.

Now let me ask you something. Do I have to be a "true believer" in the Church of Climate Change for you to give any credence to what I have to say about these things?

(1) Here is the only article that I ever recall seeing (at least in recent memory) that directly addresses the overbuilding issue. And it, of course, tries to put a positive spin on the whole thing.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-batteries-renew...