/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11247175
Coal is getting gradually replaced by wind and solar for more then a decade now, full replacement will take at least another decade
Nuclear is not an option. Simply because planning and building a nuclear plants takes at least two decades. If it becomes operational all coal plants are already gone.

>>10929898
>not practical for 100% renewable right now.

entire nations are 100% renewable for decades,
Some US states are100% renewable for decades, because of hydroelectricity, in sunny locations solar-thermic can run all year round 24/7
Also you don't suddenly switch from 100% fossil to 100% renewable, it's a gradual process and it takes decades,

>>10702302
At least in the US most nuclear plants will be shut down within the next few years. That's jut a fact. Since no new plants are being build nuclear power will almost vanish.

>>10381816
in energy sector it's already happening for a decade, works great so far

>>10367036
>is it even possible to develop enough power with other renewable energy sources?

Some nations already use 100% renewable so the answer is obviously yes. Even some US states use 100% renewable. Other states and nations are on their way.

Going green became ridiculously simple. You could power your home with green energy tomorrow with a solar kit you can order at Amazon.

Nuclear is no option because planning and construction takes decades.

>>10182668
solar and wind energy is cheaper, coal plants go out of business because they can not compete

>>10163411
All necessary innovations and advances happened. It's already replacing fossil energy.
>>10159966

green energy is growing for years, especially in rural states

>>10096255
Some states like e.g Iowa are almost halfway there. If they go on like this they are full renewable in a decade.