I’ve written plenty myself on this subject here at No Minister, but it always pays to see a slightly different focus on the subject, and from a different part of the world, in this case Britain, courtesy of the Spiked website.
But the reasons remain the same no matter where in the world you are, and after more than twenty years these are no longer theoretical arguments
- The cost. Energy prices constantly up – see Australia, Germany, California, Britain)
- Unreliable. Thus needing backup, typically via provided by fossil fuels. See Texas now:
“According to the latest ERCOT press release, the grid’s green energy sources are to blame for the stress. The subsidized wind and solar power ERCOT relies on to meet Texans’ power needs can hardly keep up with customers’ electricity demands in the 100-plus degrees Fahrenheit heat waves, much less the winter.” - No industrial scale storage.
- Environmentally damaging. Just one factor being that they require a lot of fossil fuels to be produced in the first place, and not mentioned here is their 20-25 year life span.
No Minister 
The main thing for me, touched upon but not really expanded on in the Spiked broadcast, is the complete reliance of fossil fuels needed to create the alternative energy devices.
Not mentioned are the number of birds that are killed by the wind mills
or the poor devils ,lots of children who mine the raw product used to make panels
If you want a zero-carbon backup of wind and solar, the only realistic choice is Nuclear.
But if you have Nuclear WTF do you need the windmills and solar cells for? They are thus a total waste of money and space.