To be fair, Gore put a lot of effort into that documentary. Obama did absolutely nothing, though, which cheapens the efforts of everyone else who has won it in the past (including my fourth cousin, Glenn Seaborg).

Luxemburg sends in the bailiffs

perhaps, but I still think he did far more damage than good, he is intrinsically linked to it and much of the bad presentation of that (the infamous hockey stick graph) and his post documentary profiteering are easy targets for those against climate change, couple that with his own lack of environmental friendliness in how he lives makes him a poster child for hipocrasy.

I heard that so many times :D So guys, when that glorious day will come finally? It's not like there's a lot of time left...

...primary energy consumption -- expectedly down (millions of toe):

Green = EU28, brown = Germany, blue = Denmark -- all peaked in 2006, notice the rollercoaster ride of 2008-2010.

At the same time the share of renewables in gross final consumption is up, up, up to 15% (!) currently, while nuclear is down, down, down.

I fail to see how it's a bad thing that European countries are using less energy.... Improving efficieny of energy consuming actions is only a good thing.....

Cars use less fuel, planes use less fuel, household appliances use less power etc. How does this support your argument?...

Improving energy efficiency is all fine and dandy, but declining energy consumption is a sign of dying system. In _healthy_ systems energy freed by improving efficiency goes to other task, therefore gross energy consumption stays the same or growing. But do not worry, you're not alone here, that's worldwide trend more or less. Renewables as the form of new energy source is ultimately a dead end, in fact even what we have now in that field was to a great extent made possible by low oil energy costs assossiated with the full cycle from production to utilization. No cheap oil = no renewabels as a substantial source of energy. That's how human kind rolls, a neverending battle for increasing energy flow per capita. The task of a new source of energy aside from increasing the resource base is to dramatically increase that energy flow therefore ultimately change the quality of civilization. Natually renewables in that context are hardly an answer to our needs, and as much as non-convential oils, are merely delaying the inevitable, the decline. So do they worth investment? No.

"Are they worth investment? No"

I assume you think nuclear (both fission and fusion) is the solution everywhere on the planet, but you gotta consider things like poplutation density, if people live on islands, like in Indonesia. In those cases, transporting energy from nuclear power plants (you obvioulsy wouldn't have one nuclear plant for each island in Indonesia...) will be too expensive and a waste of money.

@bolded

I'm from Norway, we have enough power to cover our consumption, so we don't have a problem here, at all.

You've assumed wrong, but in retrpospect if every S-curve of exponential growth, stagnation and inevitable decline has to be replaced by another S-curve of growth I can't see better option than nuclear for the system as a whole, the fact that Iceland will be powered by geothermal energy won't make life of average Joe somewhere else any better.

You = Europe in general, I'm not taking into account some region-specific details.

It seems that all the traditional spanish energy companies disagree with you, otherwise they wouldn't have lobbied the government to tax the sun. Getting paid for the days their combined cycle plants just sit there doing nothing seems to not be enough for them.

wasn't that due to spain having massive solar deployments due to really badly done subsidies that resulted in power generation costs not being covered by the sales of that power? hence the need to raise revenue from the solar sector that had been massively subsidised.