Neither science nor engineering is left or right.
That's not what I am referring to. Papers and studies can be funded by folks who want a specific outcome to influence in a political way and if you dig deeper The Manhattan Institute is one of those. Science is Science. But science papers can be manipulated. Was that paper peer reviewed? Doubt it. Although they mention Bill McKibben, who I have met and talked with extensively a few times mostly about divestment from fossil fuels, I am not sure their motive here. I have also talked with Naomi Klein with Bill McKibbens about all of this and a few others.
I was born into a science family, I do not deny numbers and facts. I agree but it's how it is presented and who presents it is typically the issue.
There are many fuel alternatives already out there, problem is oil lobbying. If Tesla is out selling competitors with ICE or Hybrids or electric, those manufacturers will need to step up and offer what Tesla is offering. If Tesla moves to a new technology, others will follow suite. This will be the progression of a better fuel and our path towards true zero emissions.
I think Biofuel could be a stellar way of using up waste from food which produces huge amounts of carbon dioxide, 3.3 Billion tons of CO2 globally. That food waste could be used for fuel. In Italy they do this. When I lived in Sienna Italy, they have a special pick up on Tuesday's for food leftovers which they use to make Bio-diesel.
"An Exercise in Magical Thinking" this just threw this article for me. Red flags! You have to be dense to not see where this article is headed.
To the report itself, it's main argument is that '"some people" are saying energy can evolve in the way that computing and communications have under Moore's Law and software innovation, therefore since energy can't evolve that fast we should just keep using fossil fuel.' That is a "straw man" argument.
The intent behind the analysis in the article is to preserve the fossil fuel business model, plain and simple
So the Manhattan Institute and their cronies are arguing that instead of writing down the assets of fossils in the ground, pipelines, refineries and infrastructure, that everyone else should write down their real estate assets. Their other argument is that fossil fuels are cheap and renewables are expensive.
If you look at the energy content of oil, it's priced at about $.03 US/ kWh at $50/barrel wholesale, not including externalities: health and military costs, saying nothing about the cost of climate change. Current oil price is $60-80. So fossil fuels even without pricing in externalities are not cheap compared to renewables.
We already have a problem with weather disaster costs, paid for by the federal government and private insurance companies. Very expensive real estate will need to eventually be written off, and there will be increasing loss of life. Florida is an example. Seawalls and even Netherlands-style levees are not going to help if you can't get drinking water and dispose of sewage https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...-south-florida
. Even fossil fuel central, Houston had terrible flooding in 2017. New York and New Jersey are revising flood maps. Nebraska is experiencing it now. The floods in Venice this year provide a graphic example of the future: https://www.euronews.com/video/2019/...istoric-centre
The military studies climate induced conflicts. One on the horizon is Bangladesh which is primarily Islamic and surrounded by primarily Hindu India and primarily Buddhist Burma-Myanmar. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=9162438
It is within our capability to phase out fossil fuels. If the "magical thinking" of carbon capture and sequestration happens, all the better.
The Department of Energy NREL has innumerable studies of exactly how we can increase renewables using current technology. The most inexpensive energy source is efficiency, which is a huge job generator for residential retrofits.
Tesla will change everything. Watch and see.