rehctub and ttbn, here are a few links for you to learn about the great job opportunities and job growth in the renewable energy industry:

http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/solar-wind-renewable-jobs/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-investment-kills-jobs.htm
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/renewablesreport
https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-industry-provides-far-more-jobs-in-australia-than-coal-69251/

Finally, here's some great breakfast reading for you both, "RENEWABLE ENERGY JOBS: FUTURE GROWTH IN AUSTRALIA" : https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/9bbeec4336c0f87f7e04205516b3cfa7.pdf

:-)

So let me get this right. We adopt a non-solution to AGW and get wet with excitement about jobs will generate? What about nuclear, a real solution that employs world-wide? (tho' not an army of window washers to clean dust and bird-crap daily).

Jobs, another furfy in the litany of BS spouted by renewablistas. GJOESQ, links at ten paces is not engaging. Answer this, what scalable, viable storage solution exists to make the "Transition" anything more than blind faith and trading old coal for gas or HELE?

Stop swallowing reneweconomy Kool-aid and show us the money!

Luciferase, you provide no evidence to support your claims. Frankly, it is unreasonable for you to expect a response if you post a baseless opinion. Indeed, you can research that question yourself. I look forward to reading what you find, with links so I can verify it myself. :-)

You're asking me to prove something doesn't exist? No, the onus is on you, who claims the transition to 100% renewables is inevitable (you wrote the title to this thread), to demonstrate the existence of something fundamental to this.

Modelling that fails to address scalable, viable storage, amongst several other parameters, is twaddle. The following article is saying just that in very understated terms: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118300485?via%3Dihub

Perhaps you would also explain why after so much has been spent in Germany, the poster child for renewable energy, its emissions are rising even tho' it has extension cords into French nuclear and Nordic hydro power.

Thanx for the link, Luciferase. I appreciate your goodwill there. :-)

After reading the text, I'm very encouraged by it, even though it is UK centric. Here's a very good primer article published by Australia's Alternative Technology Association early last year: http://renew.org.au/articles/100-renewable-grid-just-how-feasible-is-it/

I concur with their conclusion that there is, "A reliable, 100% renewable electricity grid is entirely possible, using a mix of technologies beyond current wind and solar farm designs. A coordinated, far-sighted approach is required, which will be challenging under the current energy market design and regulatory regime."

I suppose one could say that, where's the political will, there's a practical way. Let's face it, without significant government investment in the fossil fuel industry, it would have struggled remain competitive as renewables became cheaper: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/public-financing-oil-gas-coal-2017-7?r=US&IR=T

Here's another article that shows the huge extent to which public money is spent supporting fossil fuels worldwide summed up nicely here, "A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Oh, and Luciferase, the reason for Germany's CO2 equivalent emission had increased in recent years is because of its transport industry: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-emissions/vehicle-pollution-still-rising-in-germany-agency-idUSKBN1H31F6

I quote, "The energy industry, which is undergoing a staged transition to renewable technologies, saw its emissions fall by 4.1 percent, or 13.7 million tonnes, in 2017, UBA said.

But transport sector emissions rose by 2.3 percent to 170.6 million tonnes, as car ownership expanded and the booming economy meant more heavy vehicles were on the road."