Why are you surprised?

Because it seems like such an obvious problem to solve.

100Gt of emissions every decade. Coal is also quite polluting and no one wants to live near a coal energy plant.

Those 8500 plants actually move the needle and accelerate climate change by a significant amount.

I only guess because renewables don't yet provide a solid base load power guarantee around the clock in all weather types.

The obvious solution is not having so much demand, but we all want to have that cake and eat it.

We are half a century into the climate change problem.

How about some better answers?

It appears we’ve completely missed the initial goals and will experience a larger temperature increase.

100 million barrels of oil a day. Fossil fuels producing 84% of our energy needs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-ne...

You're welcome to downscale; china won't.

With wind and solar we apparently only need 3 days of storage. For median household thats about 3x29kwh. It costs 87kwh*150$/kwh=13,050$ to produce such battery (tho sell it at about 5x markup). Given property prices and how much it costs to upgrade grid, small residential batteries is no brainer.

> Coal is also quite polluting and no one wants to live near a coal energy plant.

With modern filters and high enough smokestacks, the effect on air quality doesn't seem to be that bad. In my region, every city has its own coal plant (mostly used to provide heat for the city in the winter) and I don't notice the effects on air quality. It's definitely a small fraction of the pollution brought by people burning coal at home (in old boilers, obviously without any filters and with low chimneys).

Take a look at global coal consumption (almost entirely driven by China, the world's leading manufacturer of solar panels and a leading adopter of wind power) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Coal_Consumption.sv... - and it's at record highs again this year.

Look at what happened in last ~20-30 years during which time the "green" movement was insisting that nuclear is too late, too costly, and renewables are the better solution to climate change, and that coal can not possibly compete with renewables and coal is dead and coal infrastructure are stranded assets.

The reality of the situation is that renewables can't even keep up, let alone reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, that coal is still one of the cheapest ways to generate power. And after China we still have half the world's population hasn't even started its energy consumption S-curve.

The people who thought fossil fuels were done for and renewables would just magically kill them and solve the problem -- with no need to look at serious investment in nuclear and hydro and real carbon pricing -- were lied to by fossil-fuel backed "green" propaganda.