jimbolauski

If only there was a group that wanted to enter f1 and was bringing an engine supplier.

It's not states estimates it's estimates to create 4,000 Terrawatt hours of generation capacity (fossil fuel capacity in the US). To put that in context that's 2,000 Hoover dams $1,600,000,000,000 or 60 years of spending the whole GDP. Looks like my 30 year forecast was overly optimistic.

Transportation has technicological hurdles, no amount of effort can solve this problem without breakthroughs in technology. It'll be a long time before there is even a path to eliminating fossil fuels for transportation.

You can't just cut and paste progress forward. Battery technology is still two or three decades away from being able to fully replace fossil fuel use. Lithium batteries are not the answer there's just not enough lithium and it can't be refined fast enough. Even completely replacing fossil fuel electricity generation would take three decades and there's no technological hurdles, it's just scaling manufacturing and construction resources to build that many plants. The scale of these efforts is hard to grasp.

The OP wanted a complete stop of production of fossil fuels a decade ago. That is a completely different statement than we need to curb fossil fuel use.

Assume people that who said "we need to stop producing fossil fuels a decade ago" really ment we need to do more to end fossil fuels usage in the next decade?

I don't assume all climate activists have the moronic opnion that we need to transition to shit tech, just the ones who say we need to be off fissile fuels a decade ago.

Grid wise with nuclear we have the capability of not using fossil fuels. Transportation wise we are decdades away before we have the capability.

We don't have a means to replace energy needs today and we were even further away a decade ago.

It's crazy to think those are the only choices.

When someone calls for ending something last decade it required immediate action now.