[XaYdEk]

Solar and wind based energy production is not going to fully or even mostly replace our gas/coal burners because they lack constant and predictable outputs.

Also, we have neither infrastructure for storing power at this level, nor would it be economically feasible.

Hydro and geo-thermal are better sources in this sense, but neither are abundant and have their own drawbacks.

'- promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal' - Only valid if the electricity is produced by means other than burning fossil fuels, otherwise you are just moving the problem up the supply chain.

Same way with electric cars, if the electricity is still being produced by dirty means, it is not all that impressive a reduction in poluttion or emissions, it's just moving the problem up the chain.

Not trying to sound defeatist or anything, it's just not a complete solution, still seem like band aid attempts by themselves.

[ar-jan]

Both real-world examples and simulations say it's possible, by combining different renewable energy sources, spreading them out geographically, and using large distribution networks, among others: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/dispelling-the-nuclear-basel...

[XaYdEk]

I feel like I might really dive into this conversation.

Technically feasible, yes, agreed. The simulations tell us this much, that at point T+x, we could have a green electricity grid, but you have to take into account the process of getting there and that means economics and politics. And there's a lot of half-measure that seem green, but just kick the can.

Ok, from the engineering side, the flexible, dispatchable sources will be required like I said, can't fully remove them. They can be hydro, which is clean and great, but it's not universally available and were it is, it's expensive to setup and tends to wreck local ecosystems. In most developing countries, the flexible source will remain what is already available most likely, at least in the short-medium term, and that is coal and gas. (this will be mostly for economic reasons)

... “renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the United States.” ... That's why the time frame is 30+ years and that's in the US. What about less developed countries ? What's the time frame there ?

What I'm saying is: we will get there eventually, we really need to, our survival as a race might well depend on it, but it's going to be one hell of a ride, it's going to take a while and it will occur at different paces in different places.

And that you need a combined approach in terms of policy as well: investments, direct grants or subsidies for large producers for new and existing renewable plants and transmission infrastructure / public-private partnership projects (depending on your countries economic preferences), incentivizing individuals to go green (ex: subsidies on solar panel purchases by homeowners in Germany, government backed buybacks of old cars, subsidies for electric cars), better environmental standards, incentives for green certifications and an actual independent third-party validation of the companies that receive/offer said certificates, increased power to government environmental agencies (don't overdue it, point is not to shrug Atlas through punitive measures, but to get them to work towards going green), tax-breaks for companies that can prove low-emission is an option, but would probably be a bureaucratic nightmare, carbon-tax and myriad of other tweaks and measures.

And the 'Free Market' doesn't like any of this. Politics and economics, not just the greatest engineering challenge we have undertaken to date.

[Qantourisc]

"lack constant and predictable" We can solve this with batteries, which we have so far not been able to succeed in to do at large scales. There has been some small scale success with liquid batteries, using cheapish elements. Which in theory is feasible to scale up.

[XaYdEk]

Technically yes, economically difficult for most nations, if it's approached at this level.

Germany has had an interesting approach to solar, where they subsidized solar panels for homeowners. I think it is the smarter approach because you incentives individuals to go green, rather than trying to implement a top down solution.

And even so, we will need to keep power plants on call for redundancy and high load purposes.

There is a video about peak power usage in England which I found fascinating (though this is a rather unique case) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAvewWfrA