Yep, this was the debunked study funded by oil.

Here's the thing though.
You'll save lots of money simply by Transitioning Now to Solar and Wind.
That way you won't have to fund blatant propaganda.

You've only go 12 years left and then you're done.
That's how geometric growth works.

The growth of solar has a hard limit at roughly its capacity factor.  That's 20% if you're lucky; Germany is achieving about 11%.  The oil companies (which are now substantially gas companies) know this and are promoting the hell out of "renewables" with gas as the primary ("backup") energy supply.

Nuclear power is the true carbon-killer.  This is why all the donor-driven "environmental" organizations are so unremittingly against it:  the major donors are FF interests.

Too bad (clean) new NPPs take so long to build (13+ years), cost so much to produce electricity ($0.20+/kWh), cannot be properly insured for potential damages from radio-active residues and accidents and are not supported by the majority.

Wind turbine farms are not so well accepted in many places. Very slow turning, very large units (10+ mega-watts) on 500+ ft towers may reduce hazard to birds and bees but the visual aspect (objection) would be worst.

Solar, installed in sunny desert areas + roof tops may be easier to accept by the majority but would require more storage.

Hydro is only about 50% developed and (with enough high voltage transmission lines) could meet part of the world wide demands.

A better solution may be to use less energy with more efficient HVAC, lights, appliances, PCs, Phones, TVs, better insulation, windows, doors etc specially during peak demand periods.

If you start building a nuclear power plant today, solar, wind and storage will have obviated it by the time it is ready to produce electricity.

Emphasis added.  Note that solar and wind are grossly unreliable and require truly massive amounts of energy buffer (storage or fossil) to provision a reliable electric grid.  Despite the efforts of the likes of Sadoway to make batteries cheap as dirt, none are available at grid scale at ANY price (and prospects have been pushed back yet again).  Pumped hydro takes too much volume to do too little; a week's worth of buffer for the USA requires two reservoirs each roughly the size of Lake Erie.  Even chemical batteries would require on the order of a cubic mile of material.

Nuclear comes with its own storage.  When you button up the vessel on a commercial reactor it's got enough energy inside to run for a year and half, sometimes 2 years.  In the case of nuclear submarines, the core has enough energy for the life of the boat.

Now, that doesn't mean that wind and solar may not push nuclear out.  That is because the law currently requires utilities to take wind and solar power even if they don't need it, and forces other generation to compensate for their surges and dips.  If that law was changed, wind and solar would be MUCH less desirable.  It would also make a carbon-free energy system that much more attainable, because curtailing surplus wind and PV allows the entire baseload to be handled by emissions-free nuclear instead of requiring CO2-belching gas turbines to counter their ups and downs.

Denmark's wind farms produce close to 50% of the electricity used in the country.

Denmark's grid emits close to 400 grams of CO2 for every kWh it provides.  The nuclear and hydro grid of Sweden next door does it with about 20 grams.  To be anti-nuclear is to be anti-environment.

Also , it is the non subsidized private sector that increased efficiency in the last 10 years. 10 years ago, there were no ethanol in gas, now a 3 percent drop in mpg and ultra big inflation in all food prices. Honda and some other manufacturers have increased the efficiencies of their ice cars by a lot with their computer controlled efficient gas engines and transmissions and the civic is at low cost. Npbody in real life want an ev, let do the free market. Diesel cars pollute the air in european cities and this is not the co2 that pollute but all the other nasty fumes and the scientific community at high cost is just foing pr against co2.
Also big oil have keep up with the growing demand for gas and they increased their efficiencies with plentu of low cost supply, all contries have increased oil taxes except u.s.a.

Well said, Maarten.

That is progress. The opponents of renewables used to say it was only 2%.

Grids require a certain amount of spinning reserve and "must-run" generators to provide essential services.  Maybe 2% can be broken, but I doubt 10% can absent lots of storage.  The problem is that good storage is scarce, and expanding it beyond the limited amount of pumped hydro will be very expensive.

Wind, PV and hydro will produce 100% in some countries in the near future.

Emphasis added.  I note your weasel-wording.  Norway and Quebec are essentially hydro.  Iceland is hydro/geothermal.  There you have "100%" without doing a thing.  Now show how to do that in the USA, where large-scale hydro is already maxed out but generates less than 7% of total electric power.

Large-scale hydro uses dams to stockpile energy (water).  Neither PV nor wind has any way to store energy at all.

Part of that equation is making all electricity production renewable.

Can't be done in the USA or most industrial countries, period.  Reliable grids require large energy stockpiles to ride through periods of low supply, and the only "renewable" which has this is large-scale hydro.  If you have the unique conditions of geography and rainfall that allow lots of hydro, you're set.  If not, there is nothing you can do about it.  Wind and solar aren't doing that job because they CANNOT do the job.

The complex powertrain of the old school sedans has a very sophisticated ICE made in very small numbers

Amost 17 million ICE LDVs are sold in the USA alone every year.  If you think this is "small numbers", you're smoking something.

every time the powertrain of a class of ICE cars becomes on par with an equivalent powertrain based on batteries, those cars are toast.

Only if you have the power to charge the EVs whenever they need it.  Your 100% renewable (meaning 93% wind and solar) grid will have many nights when there is no local generation and days and weeks when wind, solar or both are producing well below demand.  If you expect to use EVs to bank energy for the rest of the grid, think again:  if every one of the 250 million LDVs in the USA was a Tesla Model 3 with 60 kWh, that would only be 15 TWh of energy storage.  The USA typically consumes 15 TWh in a little over a day.

What I find most "renewable" advocates are is dishonest shills for natural gas.  Gas-fired turbines are the "emergency" backup for wind and PV.  The schemes of the likes of Mark Z. Jacobson will produce permanent states of emergency.  This is not an accident.

1.For the record I am in agreement with EP that the smart way to provide low carbon power outside the tropics is to build out nuclear to cover base load.
Then what makes sense for transport is BEVs or through the road charging if it can be done, as the power is available year round, day and night.

The problem with this is it is in the West at least they are not being built, and even in places like China are not yet being built in enough quantity.

2.So what is being built is renewables, which have fallen encouragingly in cost.

The problem with this is that there is no way in God's earth of covering demand without substantial recourse to chemical storage, hydrogen and its derivatives.
And yes, I know all about CAES, pumped hydro, batteries and so on.

They all fall a couple of orders of magnitude short of being able to do the job.

3. So the only politically practical means of reducing carbon seems to be via renewables and chemical storage.

The bad news about this is that it will be expensive.

The good news is that costs are dropping fast and it seems as though one way or another direct solar to hydrogen etc can be made to work.

So although it is not my preferred pathway, it has the advantage of likely being workable, which a high renewables society without chemical storage outside of the tropics isn't.

@EP Sweden has decided to shot down all of their nuclear power plants and replace them with wind power

You mean, they're talking about doing that.  Nobody's actually got a serious plan to do it yet, and given the complete failures of the past it's likely that it wouldn't work.

Norway that has some 50Gw of potential hydropower and I believe about 20Gw of installed hydropower

Try 30 GW installed, much of which is already used for domestic consumption.  Remaining hydro potential is small compared to current consumption so large expansions are not in the cards.

That assumes that Norway wants to be Europe's storage battery.  They may not want the headache.

We're almost in the same e-energy 'actual/potential' situation as Norway with close to 46,000 mega-watt of private + public Hydro developed and close to 4000 mega-watt of wind energy installed. Solar as not been harnessed.

Most of the Hydro plants use large water reservoirs, ideal to store huge amount of e-energy. The current e-energy surpluses will exist till 2027/2032. Another 50,000+ mega-watt of Hydro + Wind can be developed to supply enough energy for 3+ BEV/FCEV per family.

OTOH, our Oil and Gaz 'potential' is not yet developed because our politicians and 50% to 60% of the people are against it. The same people are also against oil pipelines from Alberta but driving over 3,000,000 ICEVs?

We use about 360,000 barrels/day of Alberta oil since December 2015 transported with an old pipeline and trains but import twice as much.

You could pick many other African countries.

Water sitting at about 4,500 feet in great lakes in the middle of the African continent could be harnessed in many places on its way down the oceans, but it is not, because of the usual high cost and current lack of demands. The total potential is enough to supply Africa for many decades if not centuries.

Huge amount of water is flowing (unharnessed) from the Atlas Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean.

The same can be said about the Andes and other mountains.

The initial cost to harness hydro may be higher than NGPPs, but well built dams can last 100+ years and (contrary to NNPs), the energy production can be varied to match demands while storing it in water reservoirs.

Greener than green people blamed China for their major Hydro project, but it will supply part of the country's clean energy for centuries at an affordable price.

I'm not against NPPs per se when we can lower the initial cost by 50++% and solve the residues storage problem and force the operators to have decent insurances (like $100+B to $500B per site) to cover the huge cost of potential accidents.

You are right about the Oil industry getting away free.

We, the tax payers have to pick up most of the $1+B in damages (+ 47 casualties) for the Lac Mégantic QC oil train accident because the insurance cover was limited to $25 M. It will soon be increased to $1B minimum but it should be at least 5X that much. The same goes for Oil pipelines.

To clean up Alberta after Tar Sands operations are over will cost xxx$B. Who will pay for it?

Cleaning up after the 19 CANDUs are closed in Ontario will take decades and will cost anywhere between $190B and $390+B. Who will pay for it?

The total cost to repair ALL direct and indirect damages created by the Ukraine accident will probably never be known.

Fossil fuels and Nuke energy should be better insured even if increases the price of their products by 25+% or so. It could be done progressively over 5 to 10 years or so.

By the way, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the Tobacco Cos against a recent ruling by the QC Superior Court. They will have to pay $60B for health care cost. If carried over to other provinces, the total may be close to $300B.

ICEVs makers should also be suited for all related damages, casualties and increased health care cost, even if ICEV's price have to be raised 25+% to do it.

Cleaning up after the 19 CANDUs are closed in Ontario will take decades and will cost anywhere between $190B and $390+B.

This is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

1. No cite for cost figures (typical for you).
2. Who cares how long it takes?  Radioactivity decays away over time.  Longer is cheaper and easier.
3. Refurbishing the CANDUs seems to cost about $2 B apiece, so the obvious solution is to never close them and replace the calendria tubes every 40 years or so instead.

The total cost to repair ALL direct and indirect damages created by the Ukraine accident will probably never be known.

The total number of fatalities is less than 60.  The cost is much less than the mortality and morbidity of the coal power required to replace the damaged reactor.

Fossil fuels and Nuke energy should be better insured even if increases the price of their products by 25+% or so.

Nuclear energy is already over-insured.  The < 60 fatalities of Chernobyl times the $300k used as a per-life value by US environmental protection statutes is just a fraction of the per-reactor insurance required by Price-Anderson.  The numbers for delayed fatalities from diffuse radiation are bogus, based on models known to be false due to natural variations in background radiation.

If nuke incidents and accidents are as cheap to fix as claimed, the insurance premiums would be very low?

They should be, and would be if liability was based on actual risk rather than paranoia based on scientific fraud (Hermann Muller was a fraudster).