Diane Rehm pushing wind and solar on NPR

She had a bunch of "alternate energy" enthusiasts on, pushing hard, claiming that reducing fossil fuel use would solve global warming and save the earth.  Trouble is, wind doesn't give you any juice when the wind stops blowing.  (It has been dead calm all day up here).  Solar quits when the Sun goes down.
  Up here we need juice all the time.  Without juice the oil burner doesn't work and the pipes freeze.  I want electricity to run the lights AFTER the Sun goes down.  Electricity isn't optional.  In winter we cannot just wait in the dark for the power to come on.
  So, the utilities have to build real power plants,  the kind that work all the time, enough of them to serve all their customers  when the wind stops and the Sun goes down.  And, the real cost of electricity is paying off the cost to build the plant in the first place.  Fuel costs and payroll are neglible compared to paying off the plant.  And, they have to pay off the plant whether it is running or not.  So, my outrageous electric bill just gets more outrageous when ever PSNH gives money to wind or solar producers.  Buying "alternate energy" does not reduce the need to make the mortgage payments on the real power plants.  They have to pay the mortgage on time even if the plant isn't generating electricity.
  In short, "alternate energy" just raises my electric bill.  Even if "alternate energy" were as cheap as real energy, buying it raises my electric bill.  And it ain't cheap.  "Alternate energy" costs about ten times as much as real energy.
  So why do we want to mess with "alternate energy" since it is just a cost enhancer?   Is it the desire of the greenies to return to a Hiawatha standard of living?  Is it a desire for the political power that comes from control of the electricity supply?  Is it a belief that 380 parts per million of carbon dioxide has a noticeable effect compared to 300,000 parts per million of water vapor?  Water vapor is as strong a green house gas as carbon dioxide, and there is a lot of it, and with most of the world covered with water, its gonna stay abundant.  Is it failure to notice that the world hasn't warmed up at all in the last ten years?