My point here is that this is not an honest exercise in discussing risks, it's scaremongering.
What the podcast argues isn't interesting because it's a bunch of anti-renewables activists who have granted themselves the liberty to selectively choose all the information and arguments that they want to make the conclusion they already decided (or were paid to come out with by a rich benefactor). It is done in the format of interviewers with an "expert", but the whole exercise is rigged because the expert has been selected to parrot the preferred ideological line of the podcast. If they don't have an opposing view, who keeps everyone honest? And there is a lot of reason to think they are not honest.
For instance, the podcast claims renewables are neither safe nor cheap. But
- the Iberian blackout story does not usefully address the actual cause of the blackout; the actual risk is not effectively discussed, so it's scaremongering
- official government figures (here via Imperial College) suggest renewables are already significantly cheaper than gas for electricity generation, and that's even without the current spike in gas prices. On what basis does the podcast think it knows better?
