This all boils (pardon the pun) down to the difference between continuous power output levels vs. fill-in power levels.

It's all very politically correct to talk about "green" energy sources, but the problem is that the traditional "green" technologies all lack the output levels needed for the current generation of electricity usage.

It's also very politically correct to then say "reduce the electricity usage". That's simply not feasible for consumers to do, as certain levels of energy usage are needed for heating (whole-house and water), cooking, cleaning, and recreation. That's only dealing with household tasks, not even taking into account cars, public transit, public safety (stop lights, street lights, water, sewer), electricity production itself (keeping the lights on for the workers, pumping water, etc..) and on and on...

This was the 2009 power production for the United States:



Coal and natural gas production could be reduced slightly with more focus on nuclear, but the problem with nuclear is if it has to be shut down for whatever reason, there is a lengthy restart process that doesn't exist for coal and natural gas plants, that's why I think the coal and gas fired production can only slightly be reduced.

The best thing that can be done is to create incentives for companies to produce products that consume less electricity so that the overall consumption is reduced. So long as the demand remains high, the need for high output coal and natural gas plants are going to remain.