Well, there is not a single word in the article against renewables. The article is written by George Monbiot -hardly a renewables opponent.

That renewables would "of course" do the job is a rather extraordinary claim when "the job" in the article is mostly getting rid of nuclear waste, with the nice side effect that you'd get a lot of energy in the process.

Even if "the job" were purely producing electricity, to say that "of course" renewables can produce 100% of the needs 100% of the time has the quality of brevity, but need not be consired the best constructed argument.

Even if we accepted that as self-evident fact, would they be able to do so with no drawbacks whatsoever (I don't mind having lots of wind turbines around but not everyone agrees, for instance) within the next 5 years? If not, they wouldn't make the debate moot at all.

Is anyone able to elaborate on the subject rather than going for bait and switch?

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi