There is a wide range of renewable sources: Hydro, geothermal, biogas, different kinds to use wind and solar. I can understand why you would want diversification across that range. So that if one source is affected by circumstances, the others can continue delivering.
But what sense does it make to diversify between renewable and non-renewable, if you meant that? It’s certainly possible to lead this principle ad absurdum. Should we diversify between tested and untested methods, between cheap and expensive, between safe and dangerous?
we don’t know what tomorrow holds.
That’s a reason to diversify between different renewable methods, distribute them across different regions. If you really meant we should include fossil fuels, you might need to make that point explicit, because it is not self-explaining.
Disagree, diversification is important, we don’t know what tomorrow holds.
Better to have a mix of both than just 1
There is a wide range of renewable sources: Hydro, geothermal, biogas, different kinds to use wind and solar. I can understand why you would want diversification across that range. So that if one source is affected by circumstances, the others can continue delivering.
But what sense does it make to diversify between renewable and non-renewable, if you meant that? It’s certainly possible to lead this principle ad absurdum. Should we diversify between tested and untested methods, between cheap and expensive, between safe and dangerous?
That’s a reason to diversify between different renewable methods, distribute them across different regions. If you really meant we should include fossil fuels, you might need to make that point explicit, because it is not self-explaining.