why do you think lego is so expensive now

most hydrogen is produced from natural gas unfortunately :(

I'm gonna be a bit nit-picky here. You linked the "Low-carbon" source, which includes nuclear energy. Granted, long discussions can be had, whether nuclear counts as green energy, but besides that, I'd argue that nuclear should not be used to generate hydrogen - if at all it should be used the same as hydrogen would be used: to bridge gaps when not enough renewable energy is available.

If you switch to renewables-only in the source just above that graph, the world is, according to latest data (2025), at 33.76% electricity generation from renewables. So when it comes to share of electricity generation with renewables we're on par with sometime around the 1950s. If you switch that graph to absolute generation and fossil fuels, you can see that electricity generation from fossil fuels has not yet started to decline.

On top of all that, this is electricity generation, not primary energy use. For primary energy use we're currently at 8.59% world-wide.

I'm not saying this to make us give in, I'm just saying that there is a long way to go - 100 years are (hopefully) a bit too much, but it's definitely not around the corner. And as an aside maybe also highlight that reductions in (primary) energy consumption are as important as ever.

Share of electricity generation from low-carbon sources

Renewables include solar, wind, hydropower, bioenergy, geothermal, wave, and tidal.

It seems like hydropower is doing a lot of lifting across the developing world. Spots like Ethiopia, Paraguay, and Brazil are all heavily dependent on hydroelectricity to power major municipalities and industrial centers.

As climate change impacts the volume and flow of major waterways, I'm a little worried how that ends up.

United States: 43%

That really shocked me. And, I gotta say, these numbers look deeply suspicious. I work in the Houston energy sector, and I can say we're not slowing down development of the Permian Basin. US fossil fuel exports are only going up. Then there's the big investment in data center fossil fuel plants that doesn't seem to be in the forecasts.

That's not to say we're also not building out enormous new solar and wind facilities, even in the belly of the Texas Beast. But the Flint Run plant alone is more than they're reporting. And that's assuming Trump doesn't get his 1.25-gigawatt Terra Energy Center in Alaska.

This statistic includes nuclear and bioenergy. I'm unsure about bioenergy, but nuclear certainly can not qualify as green. Unless you mean green glowing stuff, like nuclear waste is often depicted.

Also 100years are a very long time

Yes and humanity is sometimes very very very slow to change for the better.

"here" is nice and good, but "here" is not global. This is not about a local incident. It's easy to have "too much green energy" in one place, just build a single wind turbine and don't connect it to a grid. But using that excess power to produce an inefficient expensive fuel in one part of the world doesn't solve the global energy- and emmission- problem. It's cheaper and more efficient to transport energy all over the world and shut down local fossil fuel power plants than to produce hydrogen, ship that all over the world and burn that.

I'm still wondering what you might have meant by this.

If you produce 40% over current usage you have to get rid of that 40% immediately. For a small country with no appreciable amount of pump storage they could quickly spin up this must mean mostly by export. Otherwise the frequency rises sharply above the 50 Hz such that substations start dropping like flies.

In other words it seems obvious to me that the grid needs it.

Old and outdated story. I was there too when it started. Collapseniks missed the point that doing nothing will make nothing better.