5 thoughts on “Techno-Optimism”

  1. “came up with safe, environmentally friendly technologies that are even better in most ways than nuclear: Wind and solar.”

    That’s the point where I decided that continuing to read this article was a waste of time.

  2. Yeah, it looks like a waste. I started skimming part-way through the energy discussion; eventually I figured that if that part was so much BS that there was no hope for the rest of the article.

    Lithium batteries and wind and solar energy are environmental disasters; geothermal has been being pushed since Carter and has only succeeded in very isolated spots (and there was an earthquake in OR a couple years back blamed on geothermal. Whether or not it was really due to geothermal is irrelevant–the same arguments against fracking will apply to geothermal if it ever becomes actually practical). He even talks about fusion! At least he’s pro-nuke.

    Maybe the stuff later in the article is more imminent and more practical, but the first part of the article doesn’t fill me with hope.

  3. While is take on solar is IMHO wildly over optimistic, he does make a good point that we used to understand but have lost. Relatively cheap energy in whatever form it comes in is good. Yes it’s good to increase efficiency, but if the net effect is that energy is still consuming more of everyone’s income the world is getting poorer.

Comments are closed.