Tell that to Belgium. They are planning to close down all their nuclear plants right now. And replace them with gas.

Those LNG lobbyist from the US (or should I say neo economic-hitmen) are really worth their money. Would be shame if it backfired and the EU turned to Russia. Gas prices are through the roof, I really hope our politicians are going to think "EU first" for a change.

* Keep the nuclear plants open until we transition fully to renewables. In the meantime:

* Get LNG from the US or natural gas from the Russians depending on market prices. (Ignore those threats/boycots from the US wrt Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, show some cojones)

How hard could it be?

> Those LNG lobbyist from the US (or should I say neo economic-hitmen) are really worth their money.

They aren't the main cause here. Environmental parties in Europe have historically been built from anti-nuclear groups, and their involvement against commercial nuclear energy is ancient.

This is the sad truth. The green party in Flanders/Belgium is pushing hard to close our last nuclear plants. How they can rationalize replacing them with Gas is beyond me. They are running solely on ideology at this point.

The rationale is that this is a temporary measure, cheaper than building new nuclear plants, while the renewable buildout continues. It's likely true, but I doubt it's cheaper than running the current nuclear powerplants for longer than originally intended. I haven't looked at the numbers and the assumptions so I could be wrong in my assumption.

There is no such things as "100% renewable". The only countries that can do that already have and is because they have a lot of hydro-power or other controllable way of producing energy without emitting CO2 (Iceland, Finland...).

If you don't have way to produce in a stable matter, NOW (not in 20 years when we might have the tech to store a crazy amount of electricity across the months) your electricity you have to import it or burn what you have in your country. France choose to import uranium.

Or we go 100% renewable, but we need to start discussing about a society where electricity is not 24/7 available for a major part of the population.

Finland doesn't have a lot of hydro power. Most of its power comes from imports, nuclear and thermal power. Your claim that 100% renewable cannot guarantee electricity 24/7 to everyone is contradicted by countless reports.

We do have quite a bunch of hydro, actually.

Electricity consumed by source 2020: Nuclear 28% Electricity by combined heat & power production from central heating & industry and other thermal 25% (about 50% split bioenergy vs fossils) Hydro 19% Import 18% Wind 10%

Altogether electricity production is 52% from renewables.

Source: https://www.stat.fi/til/salatuo/2020/salatuo_2020_2021-11-02... And: https://www.motiva.fi/ratkaisut/energiankaytto_suomessa/sahk...

I'd be curious to see those reports :)

"Despite some debate, most experts agreed that 100 percent renewable energy was feasible. Is it economically or politically feasible - that's a very different question." https://www.sciencealert.com/these-climate-experts-say-100-r... Also see the links posted by bryanlarsen.

> "The Earth receives 23000 TW of solar energy, while the global energy consumption is 16 TW. Therefore, [100 percent renewable energy] could be possible even if we capture only 0.07 percent of the solar energy" says Professor Xiao Yu Wu, an energy expert from MIT.

Sure, doesn't solve the night issue. Having energy is something, having a stable production from a very diffuse and non stable one (day/night) is something else.

> Iceland power near 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy, using their abundant geothermal and hydro supplies. Renewable energy can also dominate electricity needs for more populous countries too.

So geothermal and hydro.

> About 80 percent of Brazil's electricity needs for its 209million people come from renewable sources, biomass and hydro mostly. On average, however, renewables power ~29 percent of electricity around the world. So can renewables reach 100 percent for populous countries?

So biomass and hydro.

> He argues that *there is a heavy reliance on hydro and biomass sources* - while most countries don't have access to these, so would be reliant on sources like solar, wind, and storage. In those circumstances, it's highly unlikely for renewables to power 100 percent of the electricity supply he says.

Well thanks, the article itself is making the point I want to make.

The article claims that "most experts agreed that 100 percent renewable energy was feasible", yet you decide to quote one of the contrarian experts. Why? In either case, I have satisfied your curiosity; the article links to a number of reports claiming that 100% renewable electricity is possible.

The Earth actually received 100,000 TW of solar energy. The 23,000 must be that fraction that hits land?

According to BBC: "The country will not turn its back on nuclear technology completely as part of the compromise deal, with 100 million euros ($113m; £84m) to be invested into research including on smaller, modular nuclear energy plants."