Yes, you're correct in everything you say -- it's a matter of what is emphasised and what is downplayed. a) I guess I was pointing out that a lot of people tou

Yes, you're correct in everything you say -- it's a matter of what is emphasised and what is downplayed. a) I guess I was pointing out that a lot of people tout big renewable numbers when a good deal of those numbers currently include (1) hydropower (some of the mega projects have drawn a lot of controversy, as I'm sure you know, from displacing people to changing ecosystems to causing resource conflicts with those downstream of the mega-dam) and (2) bioenergy (we should be using fertile soil to grow food crops). b) Wind and solar are variable outputs whereas every other widely used energy tech is predictable (if you ignore resource wars). So wind and solar must always include a discussion of batteries (batteries are not "green") or peaker plants (which are either coal or nat-gas or nuclear). c) Wind and solar are so new we still haven't figured out the whys and wherefores of dealing with the waste materials when they reach the end of their lifecycle. d) Power density of hydro is terrible: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/PowerDensity_Final120815.pdf https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/PowerDensity_Final120815.pd... So as wind and solar scale there are a bunch of challenges that will have to be overcome for them to become proven technologies the way fossil fuels are.