The US led the world in overall reduction of CO2 emissions in 2017 mostly due to the deployment of cheap renewables with an overall reduction of 0.9%.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36953

No, it was mostly due to shale gas, not renewables.

I am not an expert on that field, but reading this I would say that Germany has reduced CO2 emissions:

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/klima/treibhausgas-emis...

Renewables are the biggest increase in new power supply in Germany.

They havent and they increased the cost of electricity. You need to factor in what they get from other countries too.

the increase of electricity cost was because of 20 years of high subsidy of renewables. The 20 years are ending soon (1-2 years) for the first who got those subsidies in the year 2000. Gradually electricity cost should become cheaper again, as the subsidy has become low enough (maybe in 10-15 years).

Improvments in renewable technology should make renewable energy cost effective even without subsidy (at least the newer ones).

I would love to see any evidence that renewable energy is cost-effective on any relevant scale. The true cost of solar and wind both with regards to externalities and actual cost is much higher than the current politically and marketing driven claims.

The number of misleading claims when it comes to the current state of batteries the cost-effectiveness of wind and solar etc is staggering.

Don't forget calculating the price and consequences of ex CO2 of wind and solar does not include things like true cost of production (the entire vertical stack), decommission, the fact that it makes other energy types more expensive (like coal used ex at night when the sun don't shine), doesn't include the cost of digging for rare-earth materials etc.

Don't forget that solar and wind require huge areas to work because the density of wind and solar is so low compared to nuclear, oil or coal.

Sun and wind combined cover less than 1% of the worlds energy needs. The high percentages some claim like when Denmark claim 40% comes from wind are misleading as they only compare to electricity, only talks about the energy that's produced in the country (an excludes energy imported for ex when there is no wind)

There is so much disingenuous information out there it's quite astounding.

France emits 90% less CO2/kWh than Germany (they didn't even need renewables to achieve that, just nuclear): http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/2/11/german-e...

And according to https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 CO2 emissions per kWh have already decreased 2.58%/year between 2005 and 2016 (-25% over 11 years). That's already far better than the 1.60%/year I assumed (-80% over 100 years), further strengthening my point that these Nature authors' assumption that CO2/kWh will never improve in 100 years is utterly unrealistic.

In the US, that was mostly due to gas replacing coal. France is not using renewables. This is great, but not due to renewables as you initially claimed. Also, I don't think the share of bitcoin mining is significant in these examples.

I was asking for a country that managed to reduce their CO2 emissions significantly with renewables. It may happen in the future, and I'm certainly hoping for it, but we don't have a large-scale concrete example yet.

I initially mentioned renewables as just one way to achieve CO2 emissions reductions. Nuclear is another way that works just as well.

"we don't have a large-scale concrete example yet"

China single-handedly added 230 GW of hydropower in 10 years (2006-2016). This could power the entire country of Japan (5th biggest electricity consumer in the world). If this isn't "large-scale" enough for you, I don't know what is ;) China also added a ton of fossil fuel power plants in that same period, but still it shows at least hydro, as a renewable, can work at very large scales.

France who uses nuclear.

Nuclear is not generally seen as a renewable is it? It’s a really efficient extraction based source.

Its plentiful and its greener than both wind and solar. Furthermore i am assuming the point is reduction of co2, if thats the case then does it really matter in this context?

I think it matters only because there is a strong contingent of alternative energy supporters that do not see nuclear as part of the mix when talking about ‘renewables’ and for those folks the math is really hard. Conversely the math is easy with a strong nuclear mix.

Oh I get that but it also illuminates the shallowness of their position given that the reason they are against wind and solar and hate fossil is because of CO2.

Nuclear is literally the best combination of the best features from each of the other forms of energy.

Who cares if it's renewable when it's inexhaustible.

640K should be enough for anybody(tm).

is fission material inexhaustible?

It is inexhaustible in the sense that fuel is not the limiting factor on how many nuclear power plants we can build.

In this context yes. The sun also run out of juice sooner or later.