I never did because I saw this coming when I was a child, except the troons, I saw that coming about a dozen years back though.
I support a thorium first energy policy, "Fossil" fuels belong in second place because of their fallback utility and the financial dependency on scale to make it affordable, third place is Local, Green and Efficient, it's got to be all three, if you have good thermal, utilize it, if you have good wind utilize it, if you have good hydro go for it, if you get a load of sun build and use panels everywhere. If you get none of that use more thorium and coal, if you have an average IQ over 100, can aggressively maintain or raise it, and are hundred of miles from any theoretical conflict region you can consider old nuclear.
Yeah green energy is neither reliable nor efficient by any stretch of the imagination.
When applied universally, its a fuckin' disaster, when applied where all the key factors align it can be highly efficient.
Geothermal is the best example, essentially it's free energy at the cost of infrastructure, but the only places its reasonably efficient are in northern europe and northern japan AFAIK.
Solar makes a hole lot of sense in equatorial and desert nations, but people who think it's efficient in a place like Scotland should be removed from the gene pool.
Hydro electric and wind both work great if you build them in the right places but the damage to local ecology can be mighty fucking bad so that further narrows the places they should be.
The problem with green energy was the upfront cost a decade back so they figured economies of scale should fix that but nobody did the research on materials costs. Now it looks like that strategy will prevent green from ever really being green.
(post is archived)