General Discussion

... and most of that is big hydro.

Solar and wind are growing rapidly, but they will not displace fossil fuels in any "save the world" way. Neither will nuclear, but it has a smaller environmental footprint and a better safety record than fossil fuels and solar/wind/battery hybrid energy systems.

Nuclear power might also be used to make fuels and nitrogen fertilizers in an economically viable way.

"Trends" don't mean anything at the beginning of a race. In a marathon does it really matter who's in front at the first mile, or even at ten miles?

As an environmentalist I will always oppose wind and solar projects on previously undeveloped land. As a humanist I can't be enthusiastic about the development of energy resources that are fundamentally incapable of comfortably supporting our entire population.

I've grown weary of people reporting numbers that are actually quite depressing as "Good News!"

Here in California renewable energy infrastructure has raised the price of electricity to a level that makes the state unattractive to industries that consume a lot of electricity. Renewable energy may have reduced our carbon intensity here, but it has not reduced greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Industries that might have located in California simple settle elsewhere, usually places where electricity is both cheap and dirty. That's one of the reasons you see energy intensive industries such as data centers being built in in places like Utah where coal is a primary energy source.

For similar reasons Australia isn't any kind of clean energy champion. Whatever coal and natural gas they are not using domestically they export. By the only metric that matters Australia isn't doing a damned thing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.