World's youth rallies against climate change

[snoop1130]

World's youth rallies against climate change

By Kate Abnett

 

FILE PHOTO: Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg protests in front of the Swedish Parliament in Stockholm, Sweden September 25, 2020. TT News Agency/Janerik Henriksson via REUTERS

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - United under Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, young people rallied across the world on Friday to demand urgent action to halt catastrophic climate change, in their first global action during the coronavirus pandemic.

 

With wild weather wreaking havoc across the world – from fires ravaging the U.S. West, to abnormal heatwaves in the Siberian Arctic and record floods in China – organisers said the protests would remind politicians that while the world was focused on COVID-19, the climate crisis has not gone away.

 

Demonstrations were planned in more than 3,100 locations, with Australia, Japan and Fiji among the first to kick off - though with pandemic-related curbs limiting the size of gatherings, much of the action shifted online.

 

In Stockholm, Thunberg and a handful of members of her group, Fridays for Future, assembled outside parliament.

 

She said in a tweet on Thursday that the strikers will "be back next week, next month and next year. For as long as it takes."

 

Mitzi Jonelle Tan, a 22-year-old Fridays for Future activist in the Philippines, said her government was failing to protect people from both the climate and COVID-19 crises.

 

"With the COVID-19 crisis, we've really been forced to see how disproportionate the impacts of any crisis is," she said.

 

"They are still prioritising the rich over the poor, they are still not listening to the science."

 

In Australia, thousands of students took part in about 500 small gatherings and online protests, to demand investment in renewable energy and oppose funding for gas projects.

 

Organisers were asking people to post pictures on social media and join a 24-hour global Zoom call, while those taking to the streets were to follow local guidelines on the size of gatherings and social distancing.

 

The demonstrations come a year after two mammoth global strikes saw more than six million people pour onto the streets, in what organisers said was the biggest climate mobilisation in history.

 

Friday's demonstrations will focus on solidarity with "most affected people and regions" – communities that have contributed little to the world's greenhouse gas emissions, but who are on the frontlines of devastating climate threats like floods, rising seas and locust invasions.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-09-25

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Stargeezr]

When  I see a protest sign that says , (Leave the oil

in the ground.) I feel sorry for the Idiot, who would be

naked, and blind, if it was not for all the oil products.

Even the thread in all clothing is cloth and oil products.

The elastics in panties, brief, bras, are oil product. Forget

cell phones, tablets, laptops, bikes, cars and truck as even the

tires are oil product. Tesla and other electric cars have

more oil products in them, plus batteries are not reusable.

They never have been either. Dash boards in almost all

cars and trucks are oil products. Glasses are oil products,

especially the plastic framed ones. All windshields, or

wind screens are oil products. Yet I still see IDIOTS,

with their silly signs walking around like the fools,

and hypocrites that they are. This is my opinion of

some protest groups anyway. Guess that it why the

term  braindead exists.

Geezer

Edited September 26, 2020 by Stargrazer9889
error

[Donga]

Pity they're not demonstrating about the US imported wood pellets - an increasing source of Europe's energy. Deemed "renewable", so don't have the same pesky limitations of wind turbines and solar - sun is available 25% of the year in Europe, damn inconvenient that. At least Europe has some nuclear and hydro base load to reduce their coal energy.

Then the clowns In Australia, "thousands of students took part in about 500 small gatherings and online protests, to demand investment in renewable energy and oppose funding for gas projects." They don't understand where their energy comes from 70% of the time when sun is unavailable (got a bit more sunshine hours in Oz) or wind doesn't blow. Suspect they're confused about the Duracell battery ads, good grief. Same crew detest nuclear ain't overly fond of dams either.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass

Edited September 26, 2020 by Donga

[blazes]

18 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

"They are still prioritising the rich over the poor, they are still not listening to the science."

"They"????? Who are "they" pray?

 

And what is "the science" precisely?  These mindless mouthings of the new mantra "science" show just how un-or mis-educated these little snowflakes are. 

 

Have they spoken to any actual scientists?  Scientists are as diverse in their points of view about "global warming" [sorry, "climate change'] as the climate itself, which is always, over millions of years, changing.

 

I'd respect these morons if they could at least demonstrate outside the Chinese embassy in their country.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

When  I see a protest sign that says , (Leave the oil

in the ground.) I feel sorry for the Idiot, who would be

naked, and blind, if it was not for all the oil products.

Even the thread in all clothing is cloth and oil products.

The elastics in panties, brief, bras, are oil product. Forget

cell phones, tablets, laptops, bikes, cars and truck as even the

tires are oil product. Tesla and other electric cars have

more oil products in them, plus batteries are not reusable.

They never have been either. Dash boards in almost all

cars and trucks are oil products. Glasses are oil products,

especially the plastic framed ones. All windshields, or

wind screens are oil products. Yet I still see IDIOTS,

with their silly signs walking around like the fools,

and hypocrites that they are. This is my opinion of

some protest groups anyway. Guess that it why the

term  braindead exists.

Geezer

Yes, oil has millions of practical benefits.

 

What a waste to burn it.

[Chomper Higgot]

45 minutes ago, blazes said:

"They"????? Who are "they" pray?

 

And what is "the science" precisely?  These mindless mouthings of the new mantra "science" show just how un-or mis-educated these little snowflakes are. 

 

Have they spoken to any actual scientists?  Scientists are as diverse in their points of view about "global warming" [sorry, "climate change'] as the climate itself, which is always, over millions of years, changing.

 

I'd respect these morons if they could at least demonstrate outside the Chinese embassy in their country.

When was the last time you spoke to a climate scientist?

[blazes]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

When was the last time you spoke to a climate scientist?

 

An impertinent question, Chompers.  But I will answer it: four months ago. Not just one, but four.

[Lacessit]

Thermodynamics is a subject that is taught to a miniscule proportion of the population. However, it seems the young understand it better than some posters here.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, blazes said:

 

Have they spoken to any actual scientists?  Scientists are as diverse in their points of view about "global warming" [sorry, "climate change'] as the climate itself, which is always, over millions of years, changing.

 

 

95% of the world's scientists are in agreement. Climate change is happening, and it is man-made. No free lunch in thermodynamics.

Checking out the 5% of scientists who are dissenting, it is commonplace to find they are funded by right-wing think tanks, or energy companies.

[Sujo]

Good on them, they are the ones who will need to fix the mess of previous generations

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

95% of the world's scientists are in agreement. Climate change is happening, and it is man-made. No free lunch in thermodynamics.

Checking out the 5% of scientists who are dissenting, it is commonplace to find they are funded by right-wing think tanks, or energy companies.

Almost 200 countries signed the Paris Agreement to address climate change and its negative impacts. Only 1 recalcitrant walked out of the agreement and denied climate change and appointed David Legates as head of NOAA. The man spent much of his career questioning basic tenets of climate science. 

[plentyofnuttin]

5 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

When  I see a protest sign that says , (Leave the oil

in the ground.) I feel sorry for the Idiot, who would be

naked, and blind, if it was not for all the oil products.

Even the thread in all clothing is cloth and oil products.

The elastics in panties, brief, bras, are oil product. Forget

cell phones, tablets, laptops, bikes, cars and truck as even the

tires are oil product. Tesla and other electric cars have

more oil products in them, plus batteries are not reusable.

They never have been either. Dash boards in almost all

cars and trucks are oil products. Glasses are oil products,

especially the plastic framed ones. All windshields, or

wind screens are oil products. Yet I still see IDIOTS,

with their silly signs walking around like the fools,

and hypocrites that they are. This is my opinion of

some protest groups anyway. Guess that it why the

term  braindead exists.

Geezer

84 percent by volume of the hydrocarbons present in petroleum is converted into energy-rich fuels (petroleum-based fuels), including gasoline, diesel, jet, heating, and other fuel oils, and liquefied petroleum gas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#:~:text=84 percent by volume of,oils%2C and liquefied petroleum gas.

 

You expect them to put footnotes on their signs?

[plentyofnuttin]

4 hours ago, Donga said:

Pity they're not demonstrating about the US imported wood pellets - an increasing source of Europe's energy. Deemed "renewable", so don't have the same pesky limitations of wind turbines and solar - sun is available 25% of the year in Europe, damn inconvenient that. At least Europe has some nuclear and hydro base load to reduce their coal energy.

Then the clowns In Australia, "thousands of students took part in about 500 small gatherings and online protests, to demand investment in renewable energy and oppose funding for gas projects." They don't understand where their energy comes from 70% of the time when sun is unavailable (got a bit more sunshine hours in Oz) or wind doesn't blow. Suspect they're confused about the Duracell battery ads, good grief. Same crew detest nuclear ain't overly fond of dams either.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass

There is plenty of environmental opposition to the use of wood pellets. You can find evidence of that in the very article you linked to. Bizarre.

 

Where did you come up with that figure of 70 percent of the time the sun is unavailable and the wind doesn't blow? It's untrue.  Not only that but the cost of battery storage has declined by about about 85 percent from 2010 to 2019. So the energy generated by solar panels and wind turbines can be stored when the sun ain't shining and the wind don't blow. And now with a new class of zinc batteries the decline in cost looks like it will break the $100/kwh storage capacity. That's considered to be the crucial level that will make long term storage viable and eliminate the need for most carbon based fuels.

 

And it's simply untrue that batteries aren't recyclable. The new zinc batteries are almost 100% recyclable.

[plentyofnuttin]

3 hours ago, blazes said:

Have they spoken to any actual scientists?  Scientists are as diverse in their points of view about "global warming" [sorry, "climate change'] as the climate itself, which is always, over millions of years, changing.

Those those diverse scientists are very good at hiding themselves since their contribution to peer-reviewed scientific journals is vanishingly small.

And while climate is always changing, it's the rate of change which is the crucial issue. But if you don't get that bit about rates, I expect you don't care if your money earns interest at 1% or 10%.

[plentyofnuttin]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

95% of the world's scientists are in agreement. Climate change is happening, and it is man-made. No free lunch in thermodynamics.

Checking out the 5% of scientists who are dissenting, it is commonplace to find they are funded by right-wing think tanks, or energy companies.

They also tend to be old. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, it takes the deaths of an older generation of scientists for a paradigm shift to become fully established.

[mr mr]

[plentyofnuttin]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Thermodynamics is a subject that is taught to a miniscule proportion of the population. However, it seems the young understand it better than some posters here.

Not sure what you mean by "Thermodynamics." If you're referring to forcing via greenhouse gases, true. But if referring to heat generated by human activities, not so much.

Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth. That's 430 with 18 zeroes after it!

In comparison, the total amount of energy that all humans use in a year is 410 quintillion Joules.

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-solar-power-2015-9

[Brunolem]

11 minutes ago, mr mr said:

An unlimited source of energy...but unfortunately most developed countries are broke and don't have the financial means to entirely rebuild their energy production complex, especially if they wanted to use something better than uranium as source of nuclear power...

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, plentyofnuttin said:

They also tend to be old. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, it takes the deaths of an older generation of scientists for a paradigm shift to become fully established.

There will always be a small percentage of scientists who will prostitute themselves for money, just like many other professions.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, Brunolem said:

An unlimited source of energy...but unfortunately most developed countries are broke and don't have the financial means to entirely rebuild their energy production complex, especially if they wanted to use something better than uranium as source of nuclear power...

Thorium-based reactors would be intrinsically safe. However, that would mean unravelling the existing uranium-based technology.

[rumak]

3 hours ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Not sure what you mean by "Thermodynamics." If you're referring to forcing via greenhouse gases, true. But if referring to heat generated by human activities, not so much.

Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth. That's 430 with 18 zeroes after it!

In comparison, the total amount of energy that all humans use in a year is 410 quintillion Joules.

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-solar-power-2015-9

 

Ya know,  i was just having a relaxed dinner......... and that SAME thought occurred to me !  

 

Wow,,  telepathy man .

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Not sure what you mean by "Thermodynamics." If you're referring to forcing via greenhouse gases, true. But if referring to heat generated by human activities, not so much.

Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth. That's 430 with 18 zeroes after it!

In comparison, the total amount of energy that all humans use in a year is 410 quintillion Joules.

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-solar-power-2015-9

Sure, it hits the earth. But how much is reflected?

There have been three step changes in heat generated by human activity. Number one, the Industrial Revolution. Number two, the automobile and aircraft. Number three, the energy demands of the rising economies of China and India. That's one-third of the world population.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states heat cannot flow from a colder to a hotter body without work. The heat we generate flows to the oceans,  ocean temperatures are rising. Melting of the Larsen Ice Shelf and Greenland ice cap at unprecedented levels is ample evidence of that. Add in the greenhouse effect of rising carbon dioxide levels, again ample evidence. The generation of methane from decomposing ice clathrates in permafrost  is an unknown, but methane is 100 more times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of greenhouse effect.

Warmer oceans mean more intense typhoons, hurricanes , cyclones, call them what you will. Basic meteorology. Heat cells over Australia have broken all records, as did bushfires last year.

With all this evidence, it baffles me why people still say nothing to see here. It's like Trump saying coronavirus is just the flu, it will go away.

The average person is quite happy to accept the miracles of science, such as smartphones, transport, and modern medicine. When it comes to bad news, they prefer to believe politicians.

[plentyofnuttin]

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Sure, it hits the earth. But how much is reflected?

There have been three step changes in heat generated by human activity. Number one, the Industrial Revolution. Number two, the automobile and aircraft. Number three, the energy demands of the rising economies of China and India. That's one-third of the world population.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states heat cannot flow from a colder to a hotter body without work. The heat we generate flows to the oceans,  ocean temperatures are rising. Melting of the Larsen Ice Shelf and Greenland ice cap at unprecedented levels is ample evidence of that. Add in the greenhouse effect of rising carbon dioxide levels, again ample evidence. The generation of methane from decomposing ice clathrates in permafrost  is an unknown, but methane is 100 more times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of greenhouse effect.

Warmer oceans mean more intense typhoons, hurricanes , cyclones, call them what you will. Basic meteorology. Heat cells over Australia have broken all records, as did bushfires last year.

With all this evidence, it baffles me why people still say nothing to see here. It's like Trump saying coronavirus is just the flu, it will go away.

The average person is quite happy to accept the miracles of science, such as smartphones, transport, and modern medicine. When it comes to bad news, they prefer to believe politicians.

As pointed out, the heat humans generate is miniscule compared to that generated by the solar radiation that strikes Earth. And that doesn't include geothermal sources of heat.  I have yet to see one study from climatologists that claims generation of heat by humans has a significant effect on climate. Are you onto something that thousands of climatologists have overlooked? You don't need to invoke anthropogenic heat to explain the warming of the climate. CO2 and other greenhouse gases already fill the bill. Does Occam's Razor ring a bell?  

[from the home of CC]

the majority of the problem relates to over population of the earth, perhaps the next pandemic will cull mostly the young as life tends to balance itself...

[plentyofnuttin]

7 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

the majority of the problem relates to over population of the earth, perhaps the next pandemic will cull mostly the young as life tends to balance itself...

Kind of an oversimplification:

Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

[Lacessit]

41 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

As pointed out, the heat humans generate is miniscule compared to that generated by the solar radiation that strikes Earth. And that doesn't include geothermal sources of heat.  I have yet to see one study from climatologists that claims generation of heat by humans has a significant effect on climate. Are you onto something that thousands of climatologists have overlooked? You don't need to invoke anthropogenic heat to explain the warming of the climate. CO2 and other greenhouse gases already fill the bill. Does Occam's Razor ring a bell?  

Occam's Razor states the simplest explanation is the most likely. If it was only that simple. How much heat and carbon dioxide was generated by the Australian and Brazilian bushfires, do you think?

You may be right. However, when we switch over to hydrogen and nuclear fuels, we still generate heat. And despite all the huffing and puffing on carbon capture and storage, there isn't a single plant of that technology which is meeting its target. It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics at work again.

[plentyofnuttin]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Occam's Razor states the simplest explanation is the most likely. If it was only that simple. How much heat and carbon dioxide was generated by the Australian and Brazilian bushfires, do you think?

You may be right. However, when we switch over to hydrogen and nuclear fuels, we still generate heat. And despite all the huffing and puffing on carbon capture and storage, there isn't a single plant of that technology which is meeting its target. It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics at work again.

If the explanation works, then, yes, it is that simple. No need to invoke the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

All work generates heat. That has nothing to do with the fact that climatologists don't invoke anthropogenic heat as a significant factor in global warming.  

[Brunolem]

13 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

If the explanation works, then, yes, it is that simple. No need to invoke the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

All work generates heat. That has nothing to do with the fact that climatologists don't invoke anthropogenic heat as a significant factor in global warming.  

Heat is not the problem, the emissions of greenhouse gases are the problem, because they TRAP THE HEAT which instead should be dissiminated in the upper atmosphere and above. 

 

The heat sent by the sun is not responsible for CO2 emissions. 

 

On the contrary, the part absorbed by plants, including plancton in the seas, contributes to produce oxygen. 

[Donga]

4 hours ago, plentyofnuttin said:

There is plenty of environmental opposition to the use of wood pellets. You can find evidence of that in the very article you linked to. Bizarre.

 

Where did you come up with that figure of 70 percent of the time the sun is unavailable and the wind doesn't blow? It's untrue.  Not only that but the cost of battery storage has declined by about about 85 percent from 2010 to 2019. So the energy generated by solar panels and wind turbines can be stored when the sun ain't shining and the wind don't blow. And now with a new class of zinc batteries the decline in cost looks like it will break the $100/kwh storage capacity. That's considered to be the crucial level that will make long term storage viable and eliminate the need for most carbon based fuels.

 

And it's simply untrue that batteries aren't recyclable. The new zinc batteries are almost 100% recyclable.

Not enough opposition into wood pellets and business is thriving. Most people don't even know about it, let alone young people demonstrate about it. They're not taught this stuff in schools, only about climate change and evil fossil fuels.

You need to do some research fella. Sydney has 2635 sunshine hours a year and there are 24 x 365. Hopefully you can work out that means 30%, which shouldn't surprise you. Can check out other cities of the world here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_sunshine_duration

Battery storage has a long way to go yet. The Tesla in South Australia that Greens cream their jeans about stores energy for minutes, max a few hours. Research that. Certainly not the days you need for cloudy, windless days. I never said anything about zinc batteries being non recyclable??

I love renewables, got 20 solar panels on my roof and also realise when the sun is napping, my power comes from coal. Cos no nuclear in Australia, unlike Sweden 30%, France 70%, UK 20%, Canada 20%, in fact most low emitters have over 20% nuclear unless they have abundant hydro or thermal. Please research this stuff, as is all available.

Check out people like ex Extinction Rebellion spokesperson, Zion Lights who just two months ago left them to advocate nuclear. Find out why she left. Look into Michael Moore's doco, or Michael Shellenberger's book (Obama environmental advisor) or George Monbiot (The Guardian) or Bill Gates if you want to hear from someone who invests in more renewable R&D dollars than most governments. 

I'm all for mitigating climate change, but keep it real and throw off the righteous posture. It's more complicated than the kids realise and until we get the battery storage, we need either gas or nuclear (unless enough hydro or thermal available) to back up our renewables. Otherwise, why do you think poster child Germany is resorting to wood pellets and more Russian gas? Is because intermittent renewables require backup and the battery storage is just not economically feasible, won't be for foreseeable future.
 

 

[plentyofnuttin]

7 minutes ago, Donga said:

Not enough opposition into wood pellets and business is thriving. Most people don't even know about it, let alone young people demonstrate about it. They're not taught this stuff in schools, only about climate change and evil fossil fuels.

You need to do some research fella. Sydney has 2635 sunshine hours a year and there are 24 x 365. Hopefully you can work out that means 30%, which shouldn't surprise you. Can check out other cities of the world here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_sunshine_duration

Battery storage has a long way to go yet. The Tesla in South Australia that Greens cream their jeans about stores energy for minutes, max a few hours. Research that. Certainly not the days you need for cloudy, windless days. I never said anything about zinc batteries being non recyclable??

I love renewables, got 20 solar panels on my roof and also realise when the sun is napping, my power comes from coal. Cos no nuclear in Australia, unlike Sweden 30%, France 70%, UK 20%, Canada 20%, in fact most low emitters have over 20% nuclear unless they have abundant hydro or thermal. Please research this stuff, as is all available.

Check out people like ex Extinction Rebellion spokesperson, Zion Lights who just two months ago left them to advocate nuclear. Find out why she left. Look into Michael Moore's doco, or Michael Shellenberger's book (Obama environmental advisor) or George Monbiot (The Guardian) or Bill Gates if you want to hear from someone who invests in more renewable R&D dollars than most governments. 

I'm all for mitigating climate change, but keep it real and throw off the righteous posture. It's more complicated than the kids realise and until we get the battery storage, we need either gas or nuclear (unless enough hydro or thermal available) to back up our renewables. Otherwise, why do you think poster child Germany is resorting to wood pellets and more Russian gas? Is because intermittent renewables require backup and the battery storage is just not economically feasible, won't be for foreseeable future.

So your complaint about young people is that they are not focussed on this one issue? Because it's the most pressing one? Nonsense. This is just a deflection.

 

As for your 70 percent comment, you might want to read what you've written.  "They don't understand where their energy comes from 70% of the time when sun is unavailable (got a bit more sunshine hours in Oz) or wind doesn't blow." So it's 70 percent solar and wind combined? Really, fella?

 

And even then, your 30 percent figure is based on Sidney. In the USA and elsewhere in the world deserts are considered prime locations for generating solar polar. Are there no deserts in Australia?

 

And not true about battery storage having a long way to go. Zinc looks like it already has breached the $100 per kilowatt hour of storage. That is reckoned to be the magic number. And they are perfectly suitable for power storage. Currently the standard for lithium batteries for power plants is to be able to supply 4 hours of power. Already they are supplanting natural gas peaker plants.

 

And it's not only zinc batteries that are recyclable. Not just that, but as lithium batteries fall below 70 percent of their original storage capacity, they don't have to be thrown away. Instead they will be used for power storage.

 

And the fastest growing electric power source in the world is solar energy.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), renewables spending continues to exceed fossil fuel-based power, with India emerging as the world’s fastest growing energy market. 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Fastest-Growing-Energy-Sectors-Of-2019.html

 

And there have been major advances in converting wind power to hydrogen via vastly improved electrolysis catalysts.

 

Both Moore's documentary (not really his but backed by him) and Shellenberger have been extensively debunked. Basically both use outdated renewable technology and come up with a few lies to boot. 

Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/review-bad-science-and-bad-arguments-abound-in-apocalypse-never/

What Michael Moore’s new film gets wrong about renewable energy

Planet of the Humans relies too much on outdated information

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/what-michael-moore-new-film-gets-wrong-about-renewable-energy

 

I can't speak for the German government's thinking. But there is this review:

Getting to 100% renewables requires cheap energy storage. But how cheap?

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

And prices are already ahead of some posited in this article. Consistently renewable energy prices have fallen far faster than predicted.