How will we meet power needs of the future without fossil f

It is partly a separate subject to EV cars. The quick answer is we will not meet our energy needs and because we will not then there will be forced upon the many a reduction in what energy they can use as they will be priced out of the market and forced to cut back in periods of high demand and periods of low renewables input. The ground rules for this are busy being laid now and EV cars are part of those rules as they promise much but will deliver little. Smart meters will help the control and AI is waiting in the wings to pounce in terms of controlling all aspects of our lives. You will live here, you will not travel unless given permission, you have exceeded your carbon allowance, you can only eat insect burgers the rest of this month, you cannot hoard food, your social credit will be restricted if you break any rules; we are watching YOU. It is the Socialist utopia where you will be watched from cradle to grave and expected to give and to receive according to your abilities and your needs and those abilities and needs will be measured, controlled, received and dished out according to  a bureaucrat elite. Almost there now as evidenced by our politicians and mayors making policies with "world leaders" and evolving policies at odds with the democratic wishes, and clear of any mandate, of the demos.

As far as I can see in broad terms we have three alternatives. 
We can try and find ways to store renewables. 
We can allow some fossil fuel power production (maybe with carbon capture) and accept a slower warming of the planet. 
We can share renewable energy around the planet as the wind is always blowing and the sun always shining somewhere. 

I cannot accept we just do nothing, but then if you don't believe in AGW (Anthropogenic global warming) I guess you might not agree. 

I suspect we will end up with a combination of all three. 

I agree, if we halved the population global warming would fade away. I also accept we cannot tell the world what to do, but the problem with that is we share the atmosphere, so we can't build a wall to defend ourselves against it. 
This leaves only a (maybe futile) attempt to change the world by influence and that's the game we constantly play. Its a game open to easy criticism from those who can jeer at every failure. But unfortunately those jeering never offer an alternative just the criticism. 

Regarding world population we (the west) are having some success at raising standards of living which reduces population growth. 
We are also trying to mitigate the effects of the worlds population on the planet. For though you are right and cutting the population would solve the problems, so will cutting the effect on the planet of each member of the population.

Hopefully we will arrive at a happy medium with a stable population and a stable planet. 
Because if we don't then we go to hell in the hand cart with the rest of them. 

Yes that's true. Please do not ignore the rest of my post.

In the meantime the population of Africa is projected to more that triple during this century.

And contrary to zany's panglossian worldview there is no hope of a global solution - China showed us the truth of that at the Copenhagen climate conference when it dug its heels in and refused to ameliorate its emissions.

The best that the UK can hope for is a European-level solution involving in the short term a rapprochement with Russia, a Manhattan-Project scale effort to develop alternative sources and stringent population control (no more immigration). But I fear that its political class has no appetite for such things anymore.

They have no appetite because they have other solutions in mind re World Government and control of all that people do. The skies will empty of most but private jets, the roads will be largely silent except for those most important people, buses and goods transport. That solution obviously involves breaking the UK as a homogenous grouping and Western Europe. 

Dear Tony has it planned
institute.global