My own country, Australia, is rich in renewable resources and has the money to invest, yet only around 15 percent of electricity is sourced from renewables.

They claim they have enough money, but do they really, Governments run on huge deficits, for the most part, they could go into more debt for it and are probably good for it, but is it cost-effective?

Wind power can be sent straight to the electric grid, or stored in a battery. The trouble with the latter is that, at the moment, batteries big enough to store lots of energy are expensive.

Batteries are expensive, but let's not forget that a country like the USA is large, not postage stamp sized like the often quoted Iceland, which coincidentally didn't go Green suddenly but started in 1904. The truth is that it would cost billions for each state to implement, on top of that you would have to get large batteries to store it, my understanding is battery production is in no way Green, batteries also don't last forever and need to be replaced, would there be an offset to the green revolution when they have to continue producing very unclean batteries?

If we could build enough of these pumped hydro stations as backup for the variability of solar and wind power, Stocks said, Australia could easily get all of its electricity from renewables.

We are again talking billions to install. The article talks about a cost of 3.3 Trillion if we don't do anything about global warming by 2050, we are probably talking the same figures or more to replace the old system.

"If there's uncertainty around politics, then things grind to a halt," Stocks said.

As does money it would cost to update and install.

"But the struggle is on the political, institutional, cultural areas, trying to get movement from governments and industries that are tied to the past."

In the US, a country that Stanford University says has more than enough resources to run entirely on renewables, the goal is 30 percent by 2025.

These last two quotes go together for me. We are tied to the past, it's already installed, we don't need to spend trillions to replace it and update to new stuff. The goal at this time is to phase out the old and in the new, but this article makes it sound like they should do it immediately, the Stanford study even claimed: "Geothermal energy was available at a reasonable cost for only 13 states." But they don't say what they think is reasonable, or how those states could pay for it, most states operate on a budget deficit as well and can't keep up with crumbling infrastructure, where are they going to find the ability to do this?

The Stanford study also says...

So the overall cost spread over time would be roughly equal to the price of the fossil fuel infrastructure, maintenance and production.

"When you account for the health and climate costs – as well as the rising price of fossil fuels – wind, water and solar are half the cost of conventional systems," Jacobson said. "A conversion of this scale would also create jobs, stabilize fuel prices, reduce pollution-related health problems and eliminate emissions

They never talk the actual costs in either the fossil fuel or supposed lower costs of green, you can't compare because they don't give you numbers you are just supposed to take their studies word for it... The second part of that quote is that green will cost half of the fossil fuels, sure in theory, but who is going to pay for the rollout of the new techno...

My own country, Australia, is rich in renewable resources and has the money to invest, yet only around 15 percent of electricity is sourced from renewables.

They claim they have enough money, but do they really, Governments run on huge deficits, for the most part, they could go into more debt for it and are probably good for it, but is it cost-effective?

Wind power can be sent straight to the electric grid, or stored in a battery. The trouble with the latter is that, at the moment, batteries big enough to store lots of energy are expensive.

Batteries are expensive, but let's not forget that a country like the USA is large, not postage stamp sized like the often quoted Iceland, which coincidentally didn't go Green suddenly but started in 1904. The truth is that it would cost billions for each state to implement, on top of that you would have to get large batteries to store it, my understanding is battery production is in no way Green, batteries also don't last forever and need to be replaced, would there be an offset to the green revolution when they have to continue producing very unclean batteries?

If we could build enough of these pumped hydro stations as backup for the variability of solar and wind power, Stocks said, Australia could easily get all of its electricity from renewables.

We are again talking billions to install. The article talks about a cost of 3.3 Trillion if we don't do anything about global warming by 2050, we are probably talking the same figures or more to replace the old system.

"If there's uncertainty around politics, then things grind to a halt," Stocks said.

As does money it would cost to update and install.

"But the struggle is on the political, institutional, cultural areas, trying to get movement from governments and industries that are tied to the past."

In the US, a country that Stanford University says has more than enough resources to run entirely on renewables, the goal is 30 percent by 2025.

These last two quotes go together for me. We are tied to the past, it's already installed, we don't need to spend trillions to replace it and update to new stuff. The goal at this time is to phase out the old and in the new, but this article makes it sound like they should do it immediately, the Stanford study even claimed: "Geothermal energy was available at a reasonable cost for only 13 states." But they don't say what they think is reasonable, or how those states could pay for it, most states operate on a budget deficit as well and can't keep up with crumbling infrastructure, where are they going to find the ability to do this?

The Stanford study also says...

So the overall cost spread over time would be roughly equal to the price of the fossil fuel infrastructure, maintenance and production.

"When you account for the health and climate costs – as well as the rising price of fossil fuels – wind, water and solar are half the cost of conventional systems," Jacobson said. "A conversion of this scale would also create jobs, stabilize fuel prices, reduce pollution-related health problems and eliminate emissions

They never talk the actual costs in either the fossil fuel or supposed lower costs of green, you can't compare because they don't give you numbers you are just supposed to take their studies word for it... The second part of that quote is that green will cost half of the fossil fuels, sure in theory, but who is going to pay for the rollout of the new technology, it's not going to be the companies installing it. Jobs will be created but thousands will be lost when the coal workers are out of jobs, so it's probably a break even on jobs, or probably still job losses because they won't need a thousand people working the wind turbines. Fuel prices can never be stabilized, by the fact that the main fuel is oil and that's controlled by a cartel whose job is to make money.

So, while I may be batshit wrong, I believe it's way more feasible and economical to stay the course and make sure we meet 30% by 2025, hopefully, followed by 60% in 2050 and 100% by 2100. I believe all new construction should be green, and fully support the California system of all new construction requiring solar panels. I also feel all new Power Plants should be required to be majority green.

Because it CAN'T power entire countries