Market forces, unfettered, will provide what's needed when it is needed.I'm often wrong. Its part of being an imperfect human 🙂
You do realise that this change is not an overnight thing, but a gradual phasing in over time, and it may very well not be possible to remove all petroleum based energy sources, in fact we may not need to. As a start we need to start reducing our CO2 production, but again that does not mean we go to bed producing N and then tomorrow "we" produce, via industry, 0.
But to debate that we should just carry on ignoring all other energy sources is a bit ostrich like don't you think.
Heck what will happen to dear old America in 500 years if oil did run out?
[/QUOTE]Being a "Geo", I thought the promotion would have failed long ago. But the money is so compelling and so corrupting.
There is an old saying about medieval troubadors, as they mooched from castle to castle or from hall to hall.
"His bread I eat, his song I sing."
Personally, I'm all for nuclear, as are many people advocating for climate change activists. You paint with far too broad a brush. New reactor designs are quite safe compared to the 1950s-70s designs that caused the newsworthy nuclear incidents. Plus, people tend to be quite irrational about radiation."I'm going to leave out nuclear power because you greenies are sooooooo afraid of it even though it is the one and pretty only one that would make even a dent in that power number that is needed and no deadly, disgusting CO2 that you are so worried about is emitted from them."
This exactly. I won't take seriously anyone who advocates for alternative energy "solutions" as a response to concerns about C02 levels which don't include nuclear energy. Very few "green energy" advocates do, though. They patronize others, claiming the "pro-science" mantle for themselves, while they themselves are not grounded in anything resembling objective reality. They have a strange idea of scientific credibility.
If (if) ever-rising CO2 was really an immediate existential threat, the ONLY realistically effective response would be to shift power production from coal to natural gas for the short term, and ultimately natural gas to nuclear for the long term. 4th gen reactors, such as fast breeder reactors, could supply the world's current energy needs for 500 years burning only what we already have stored as nuclear waste (http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf). Instead, apart from a few realists like Bill Gates, we get a barrage of nonsense solutions from the alarmists. A conspiracy to take away individual autonomy? From some no doubt; no doubt for many others it's simply an indication that their naive idealism far overshadows any kind of technical competence.
p.s. I love Roger Pielke Jr. btw. Also Judith Curry. Eminently reasonable yet are labeled as heretics because they simply demand discussion about that we are supposed to accept unquestionably, no matter how questionable.
I tend to agree and good to see the US doing so well. Well done.I tend to be a technological determinist as far as social change is concerned. Historically, when pressing needs appeared, humans have solved their problems by creating new technologies. Technological fixes, however, do little to scratch the itch of people who are experiencing status anxiety and who have a psychological need to see their social values institutionalized as laws. It's interesting to note that the US leads the world in carbon emission reductions. Technology rocks!