[ThomPete]

1) China uses everything they can from coal to nuclear to the wind. They are moving in ALL directions, not just one.

2) If you with green mean wind and solar then yes it means expensive because both have a low capacity factor and intermittency problems which means that either coal, gas, oil og nuclear have to be there as a backup. They, of course, need to be calculated in just as things like decommission which isn't being calculated in for wind and solar but is for nuclear. In other words, green cost as it's calculated is not the true cost.

3) No green isn't the most practical solution exactly for the reasons mentioned in 2). Sure you can provide a little here and there but you cant actually build a flourishing economy on wind and solar and there isn't a single example of that being the case. With oil, gas, coal and nuclear you can. Nuclear is too expensive which leaves us with fossil fuels.

So I would claim that your 3 reasons lack reality :)

[dominicr]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...

Sort the table by Renewables as a percentage of generation. There are countries with flourishing economies running with a majority of renewable power generation.

The intermittency problems for some renewables are being overcome as more solutions are invented and improved. Most new technologies have problems to overcome, so it'd be unrealistic to expect instant & perfect solutions. The speed of innovation here is impressive enough to already be delivering real world solutions which provide energy to communities and countries.

[ThomPete]

You are confusing energy with electricity. In ex, Denmark electricity is only 17% of the energy consumption.

On a global scale wind and solar only handles 1% of all energy consumption and it's not expected to move to more than 3-4% in 2040.

And no the intermittency problem is not being overcome, not even by a long shot, as it's a physical boundaries problem not technology or optimization problem.