I think The Goreacle said ten years in 1996.
The randomness of weather seems to escape the understanding of these poindexters, for example, in the northeast U.S., the warmest November on record in some places has been followed by the biggest December snowstorm in ages in some of those same places.
If they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then why not go more towards nuclear power instead of relying on inefficient and underproductive wind or solar? Nevada was trying to integrate a massive solar power project (west of Tonopah) into their grid from 2012 to 2018, finally gave up on it because it wasn’t reliable or predictable enough despite an expenditure of over a billion dollars and obviously unlimited sunshine.
How does that help the poor and needy? It only helps the big players who invest in these boondoggles and scoop up massive amounts of public money. Nuclear power could be developed without spending public money at all, at least long-term, because it’s a reliable source and can be integrated at high volumes (Ontario, Canada has used nuclear power as a large component of its grid for decades).
Nuclear power got onto the wrong side of the political left’s quirky set of priorities in the 1970s basically because the Soviet handlers told the useful idiots to oppose it (thinking that gains made in conventional nuclear might spill over into military nuclear).
But nowadays there is no compelling reason for the left to be opposed to nuclear power. If they are as pro-science as they claim, the science of nuclear is well established and mitigation is fairly easy for any problems that do arise. Just situate the nuclear power stations well away from large population centers in case there are brief glitches. The average nuclear power plant incident is something like a two-day minor nuisance event, something like Chernobyl or Windscale (UK 1950s) is rare, and Three Mile Island was never that huge a public health problem. Given that these are the only really significant problems in the nuclear power industry over half a century, it’s not a very risky thing (can’t count Fukushima because that was really an earthquake-tsunami disaster rather than a nuclear power problem).
We had 10 years left when I attended college in the early 70’s.