Problem #1 is that it is almost entirely focused on electricity which is only roughly 25% of the problem.
What is the other 75% of the problem which can’t be solved with electricity?
#2 <infrastructure>
Can see this raising the cost substantially, but given that only 8-9% of GDP is spent on energy, we can maybe eat that and survive?
#3 <pumped hydro for seasonal>
That does sound like a bad assumption, and lowers my opinion of any paper which makes it.
I have done a ppt but I am revising it over the next weeks in response to comments. I will post it here when done.
Looking forward to it.
For a renewable solution you need to expend large amounts of energy removing the CO2 from the air and finding a way to store it.
If the point of renewables is to stop climate change, yes. If the point is to keep civilisation running at all, no, you can just eat the CO2.
I do not see how you are going to stop the locked in population growth. and economic growth in LDCs is proceeding apace.
Population growth, agreed. But, if energy costs start seriously rising, economic growth will naturally slow or reverse, no?
What is the other 75% of the problem which can’t be solved with electricity?
Can see this raising the cost substantially, but given that only 8-9% of GDP is spent on energy, we can maybe eat that and survive?
That does sound like a bad assumption, and lowers my opinion of any paper which makes it.
Looking forward to it.
If the point of renewables is to stop climate change, yes. If the point is to keep civilisation running at all, no, you can just eat the CO2.
Population growth, agreed. But, if energy costs start seriously rising, economic growth will naturally slow or reverse, no?