You wrote "bottlenecks", I showed that we deploy more and more. The reader can decide. You first criticize me for merely providing data, then for my "analysis

You wrote "bottlenecks", I showed that we deploy more and more. The reader can decide. You first criticize me for merely providing data, then for my "analysis". Go figure. Your points (substitution effect and methane) are pertinent, but my answer wasn't about this but about the fact that there is no sign of abatement of renewables' growth. > We can't build them substantially faster One more: nothing, especially historical data, sustains this. We burn less and less fossil fuel thanks to renewables, which more and more replace it, and there is no clear indicator of this trend to change. This is too slow, granted, however there is no magic wand and demanding an immediate perfect solution is playing upon the nirvana fallacy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy ). > We're building gas instead of nuclear ... because since the 2000's: - industrial renewables appeared and are (very quickly) more and more adequate. I other words to replace fossil fuels nuclear isn't the only contender anymore. Thanks to renewables: no risk of any major accident propagating very dangerous long-term stuff difficult to recover, no hot waste, no dependency towards any provider of fuel (such as uranium), no weapons proliferation risk, quick and easy deployment, no decommission-related nightmare (see the ongoing case in the U.K.)... No wonder renewables are booming. - all nuclear-building projects are more-or-less resounding failures