Adam, do you happen to have any professional or other connections to the ff industry that you would care to share?
(I do agree with you about demand destruction, by the way.)
Wili: I am not protecting the ff industry at all. I am a staunch advocate of destruction of demand for all fossil fuels (which will hardly endear me to any ff board or share holder), while being desperately opposed to wasting increasingly scarce resources and money on development of alternative energy sources which could lead us up blind alleys, wasting precious time and resources as we go.
A persistent feature of mankind's nature is that people will turn a profit where they can find it - and externalise costs to their operations where they can. So while there is a market for ff - a demand - some mindless prat will seek to fill that demand and make a buck regardless of any social or environmental downsides.
So we can in turn shut down every fossil fuel provider over the whole planet, but others will spring up in their wake to fill the gap in the supply market UNLESS demand for their ff product is eliminated by some combination of demand destruction (as I strongly advocate) and replacement with alternative sources of energy which are proven to yield an adequate return on investment by society when measured honestly and holistically.
What is getting folks backs up here (as far as I can gather) is that I express the heretical view that maybe wind, solar and the associated infrastructure needed to condition power from those sources for use may not be a net gain for society if we attempt to deploy it at scale (i.e. orders of magnitude greater than today). Until such technologies are robustly (clear of lobbying and political influence) proven to provide a net gain the only 'safe' path in the short term is vigorous demand destruction.
I don't see any danger in this approach. Demand destruction - 'Negawatts' - has a low cost and an eternal cost-free return and positive environmental and social outcomes. However, developing and installing replacement energy technologies which are not proven to provide a net gain (in our desired direction) are much more dangerous, as they may be leading us up the wrong creek.
So sure, potter on with wind and solar, but most of our efforts should be focused on controlling and reducing demand for oil, 'natural' gas and coal.
Bob: I appreciate your points.
The mere fact that wind and solar are being incorporated into global energy systems is not proof that it is sensible to do so. It merely proves their
technical viability. It is near impossible to find our way through the vast web of interconnected subsidies which are provided for all sorts of energy supply to even discern the true global economic worth of these systems, let alone to discern the overall return on the effort of creating and sustaining them. This return must be positive or it is all a waste of time. But if we want to persist with these alternatives then those issues must be addressed. I don't think they have been.
I note that in your list of things to be done you do not mention demand destruction. Why not? Given that Negawatts do not pose any risk to uptake of whatever RE systems we can deploy which prove to be viable (from a full accounting perspective) is there a reason why Negawtts are not top of your list?