Global warming

Reduce fossil fuel usage to virtually zero.

Unfortunately you obviously think you know more than you do so I will end it here whilst I am still been civil.

He probably hasn't improved biodiversity, as I said earlier, perennial ryegrass with it's shallow root system is optimized to mop up inputs, and has been favored over the years where it was quick and easy to spread more N fertilizer rather that looking at alternative solutions. It's part and parcel of industrial farming.

Land that's properly rested with Savory's Holistic Planned Grazing can be managed to naturally bring in more species (different plants get a chance to establish if the ground is grazed at different times and they can reestablish from the seed bank in the soil), but if you're going out to reseed in the morning Multispecies Swards are a much better alternative than Perennial Ryegrass. They improve biodiversity both above and below ground. They also need much less chemical N fertilizer. They can access minerals from deeper in the soil horizon and mop up excess nutrients that may otherwise be lost, thanks to the different root types of the different species in the mix, and by virtue of their deeper roots they also sequestering more carbon lower down.

Above ground, the variety of flowering species, supports a range of pollinators, and that in turn supports more birds and other wildlife that feed on these.

This is a still taken from a video by Professor Helen Sheridan from UCD, based on research carried out there. In their trials they were still spreading some artificial N, I think only about a third of what was spread on the PRG swards, but some proponents of multispecies advocate spreading none at all.

Multi-Species Swards - Science & Practice Conference - Professor Helen Sheridan, UCD

It is.

Yes but unlike a gas power station that's a one off hit and then it all carbon reduction.

I knew you were just another run of the mill climate change denier when the surface was scratched

Shows us the calculation that supports that assertion.

Here is your answer

and you guessed it you were wrong by an order of magnitude. If you had just done a simple search before making wild claims you could have saved yourself embarrassment - but I see a pattern developing here.

There has been no worldwide replacement, no energy subtraction only energy addition (Jevon's paradox). So while plenty of renewables (which aren't really renewable) have come online, the overall trend of fossil fuel consumption is continuing ever upwards. As an aside there is no other energy source which has the mutability or fungibility of oil. It's unique in that respect again something which no renewable has.

There are ~440 active nuclear power plants in the world. Based on their outputs, this would need to be scaled to 15,000 to power the world. The current rate of viable uranium is estimated to last 80 years. Scaling that to power 15,000 would exhaust that in about 5 years. That's before even looking at the commissioning/decommissioning aspect and the waste.

Believe me, I wanted to believe nuclear produced hydrogen was the solution to our problems but I'm afraid it's not..

Nah, it's reasonable to expect supporting data. Your own common sense seems to fail you at every turn tbh.

The process involves using fossil fuels to pump prime the transition to renewables, once you hit critical mass the fossil fuel get replaced by renewables.

I wouldn't disagree that life will probably have to adapt to a different reality - but there is literally vast and limitless amounts of solar (in all its forms which includes wind and wave) to tap into. Sodium batteries are now approaching the energy density of lithium but using one of the most common elements on the planet.

It's difficult to conceptualise the path forward since the future will look entirely different to what we have now. All the essential elements are already in place and research is making every element of it both more efficient and cheaper. Do you think that a farmer driving his horse and cart a couple of centuries ago could imagine the world we live in now ? He would not have single clue that the world would be so different to the one he lived in.