that there is some limit where we can't depend on wind and solar. My sense of that is that with improved grid technology, a wide over-capacity in wind turbine potential (maybe an expected productivity of 50% or 40%), and wide geographic diversification of the solar and wind farms, we should be able to get at least to the 50% renewable level without needing a whole new storage technology.
And we could get to the 80% renewable level if we could rework the ownership / political issues with the coal, gas, nuke, , hydro, and geo plants. If the politics could be changed such that enough of the gas plants could operate mainly as standby power, then we could push wind/solar up to the 80-90% point. That's a heavy lift because those plant operators like the deal they have today. But we could move to a model more like the agricultural plan where farmers receive payments for NOT producing if that is in the best interests of the overall food supply. The same concepts could (theoretically) be applied to private electricity plant operators.
What I am describing will not happen in 5 years, but it could happen over the course of 20 years, and that could have a huge impact on our carbon emissions. And during that same time, we will move a lot of vehicles to electric or hydrogen (made from electricity), which will in turn multiply toe progress on carbon. And this is all within the realm of affordability. It doesn't require consumers to buy products that are ridiculously expensive and it doesn't require massive government subsidies. It requires some short-term support to get it going, but it is economically viable in the long run.
= new reply since forum marked as read
