"And if it is the case that coal plants are threatening the grid, why don't they just get shut down right now?
Then all the grid problems would be sorted, right?
Right?"
Several days have passed since that question was put to you, so one would think that gave you plenty of time to come up with an answer, instead of just the chirruping sound of crickets.
Again, if coal plants are so bad and are causing grid instability, why don't we just shut them down and the problem will be gone?
If the answer is that we need to have them as a source of baseload power when supply of energy from renewables is constrained by the iron laws of Physics, then can you say:
1.) What percentage of the time is the demand curve able to be fully satisfied by renewable power?
Because it is no use simply increasing the area under the aggregate power supply curve by adding more renewables (as we have been doing with great gusto, to the extent that at certain brief times we have to throttle back the surplus lest it "melt the grid"); you need to match all points on the demand curve. This is a fundamental truism of sound, prudent energy policy.
[Hint: some of the states with the most significant investment in renewable energy (i.e., California, Germany and Spain), are able to satisfy between 5% and 8% of the demand all of the time:
2) When it will be that all points of the demand curve are fully satisfied without the need for coal fired power?
If it is going to take decades, which I strongly suggest it will, then maybe we can shut down our fossil fuel energy sources and do what those progressive European folk are doing after they shut down their fossil fuel industries, and import the much-needed Joules from someone who is our enemy:
