Apis, Dave's not too keen on climate change being discussed here because it leads to bust-ups. So I'll just say that there are two distinct issues here:
- Whether there is actually a problem
- Whether the proposed fix will work
To me anyway first is uncertain. One the second there is no doubt, though. The answer is a definite No.
We've been installing wind turbines for over 20 years. Granted, the rate of installation has been much higher in this last decade. However, all that has been achieved by this is to replace 1% or 2% of total world energy by wind power. If we say 10 years to achieve 2% as a best case, that still means
500 years to go '100% renewable' by that route. In this I'm not even considering measures to smooth out the fluctuations of wind power. So it's an absolute best case scenario. The reality is bound to be worse.
Solar PV can make some inroads, but its main problem is that most of the planet doesn't get enough year-round sun for it to be useful.
So if we want to solve the problem, we need to look elsewhere than the traditional renewables.
I really think we should be developing thorium LFTR and fusion. More money is now being spent on wind and solar, easily by a factor of ten or more, than it would take to perfect those technologies in the five or ten years the alarmists say we need a solution by. We
can do it that way. There is an element of gamble but if it pays off we're quids-in with a better energy system anyway, climate change or no. Sticking with the current approach just means colossal sums of money wasted, no solution, nothing gained.
-If the option is between a gamble with a decent payout and certain failure.. which do you choose?