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).