Auf die Frage:

A 100% renewable world is possible?

1. It is impossible for technical reasons. (Renewables have too low EROEIs, need too large amounts of natural resources, we'll run out of fossil fuels first, climate change will destroy us first, etc.)

2. It is technically possible but so expensive to be unthinkable.

3. It is technically possible and not so expensive to be beyond our means. However, it is still expensive enough that most likely people will not want to pay the costs of the transition before it will be too late to achieve it, unless we move to a global emergency status.

4. It is technically possible and inexpensive enough that it can be done smoothly, by means of targeted government intervention, such as a carbon tax.

5. It is technically possible and technological progress will soon make it so inexpensive that normal market mechanisms will bring us there nearly effortlessly.

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.ch/2016/05/a-100-renewable-world-is-it-possible.html

Die ganze Veranstaltung scheitert meiner Einschätzung nach nicht an mangelnder Energie, sondern letztlich (falls nicht bereits an PCM's law) an Tainter's law, das ich auf einen Satz reduzieren würde:

Zusätzliche Investition in zusätzliche Energie und Schulden (Kredit) führt zu zusätzlicher Komplexität mit stetig abnehmendem Nutzen, bis dieser negativ wird.

Grüsse, Zara