I am concerned now because covering the world in solar panels and wind turbines is unsustainable. Each siting location by definition is worse than the one before. The vast land area required will cause tremendous societal and environmental impact. Problems of energy storage, rotating mass, and baseload power remain unsolved by wind and solar.

We need to get on nuclear. Then we can help poorer nations with nuclear power so they can undergo their own Clean Industrial Revolutions. In 80 years we all want the world’s ~11 billion plus people to live far better than we live in the West today.

If you say:

> Each siting location by definition is worse than the one before.

How is that not true for nuclear power plants? If we have better tech, we can remove old panels and wind turbines. With nuclear plants the place is lost forever. Let alone that there cannot be a safe place to store the waste.

Energy storage and baseload are in fact solved problems: a good grid (because it's always windy somewhere), and a combination of batteries for overnight storage and power-to-gas for long term storage.

I'm in favor of nuclear power too, but it takes too long to build.

> Energy storage and baseload are in fact solved problems: a good grid (because it's always windy somewhere), and a combination of batteries for overnight storage and power-to-gas for long term storage.

That's far from solved, countries close to each other have very similar weather pattern and wind electricity is especially unreliable. We're also very unlikely to have a massive breakthrough in turbines since we're close to the theoretical maximum already.

The talks I heard by the engineers that actually studied this disagree with you.

Here's what a real wind production looks like: https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1153626109814202368, spot the problem.

Wind turbines obey Betz's law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law and are already close to maximum efficiency, the only thing you can do is drop the production cost.

Now add enough batteries to those charts to store 10h or so of energy and expand the grid to western Europe. Add in some solar as well.

Experts wrote thick reports on how to transition to renewables. You shouldn't dismiss their work with half a dozen graphics on Twitter.

Is the problem that the chart only covers a specific month and does not combine multiple intermittent energy sources into one?

Depending on the region, seasonal differences caused by low wind are canceled out by higher solar production and low solar production is canceled out by higher wind production. That chart completely fails at showing that.

For comparison calculate the percentage of the earth covered with nuclear power plants to reach the same goal.

Available area is really not the problem.

Before or after meltdown irradiates the countryside?

I'm a LFTR fan. Solar wind has won and civilization should concentrate on enabling it to eliminate gas/coal from our energy production.