"Never will" is of course an untrue hyperbole. There are stronger and stronger incentives to make this happen, and while it's probable that non-renewables will never go to 0.0%, they will definitely reach for it.
173TW is the amount of solar energy that reaches Earth. More than 10,000x what we currently use. Sure, we'll probably never (there's that word again!) use all of it, but it gives a sense of scale. And who knows, perhaps we'll use more since there's always the other side of the sun. Apparently, a full dyson sphere around the sun would theoretically give us 400 septillion (10^24) watts.
That's probably a bit absurd, and would probably cause a lot of changes since it would also mean that all the oceans are practically covered with panels.
Here's a reference to a study about large-scale panel installations:
In this case you are basically just changing the path of the light already hitting the planet. It will eventually become photons again and can leave back towards space, plus there is no release of greenhouse gases.
I guess it would still do something for the temperature of the planet, but to a far lesser extent.
Electrolysers exist and are rapidly approaching parity with gas.
Fossil fuels already require massive subsidy and military spending, and there never has been and never will be a thermal fission reactor that can run without subsidy.
With developed countries ranging from 25% to over 60% in government spending as percentage of GDP, your argument doesn't carry the same weight. Every industry is running with subsidies.
Do renewable energy sources somehow negate the need for a military to maintain security and keep shipping lanes open? If the US isn't invading Iraq for oil, it could spend the money on invading some other country instead for the resources that building renewables needs.
> With developed countries ranging from 25% to over 60% in government spending as percentage of GDP, your argument doesn't carry the same weight. Every industry is running with subsidies.
I'm happy for subsidies, let's subsidise the things that are efficient uses of resources though.
> If the US isn't invading Iraq for oil, it could spend the money on invading some other country instead for the resources that building renewables needs.
Yeah, 200mg of recyclable silver and 5g of recyclable copper is definitely equivalent to 2 barrels of oil.
> You think large powerplants that will need to be turned back on then can be turned on like a TV, with a press of a button?
In addition to batteries (including ones made from abundant materials like sodium which are beginning mas production now), wind, tidal, bagass and waste stream methane generation, this is precisely what OCGT plants are for and many CCGTs can do it too (especially if by some lost magic they learn how to predict when sunset will be). You can run them on Hydrogen or one of many other flammable substances you made during the day or during the summer. This already costs on par with new nuclear and is dropping by over 20% per year.
> Also: the energy comes from renewables, but the solar panels themselves are certainly not.
The raw material investments of solar and wind are on the same order as coal or nuclear and decreasing every year. Unless you are proposing building more gas?
https://euenergy.live/country.php?a2=GR
230 Euro/MWh, one of the most expensive in whole EU. For comparison it was windy that week. Norway, Sweden and Finland had almost free electricity
https://euenergy.live/country.php?a2=SE1
7 Euro/MWh