Reply #21: Happy to. Got a few trillion dollars to spare? [View All]

That won't do the job, but it'll get us started.

Actually, coal and LNG plants are extremely cheap to build and operate, which is why they're so popular. The byproducts are the problem, not the cost (though LNG is practically blameless compared to coal).

I'm happy to talk about parts of the solution, but it gets me annoyed when people buy into the hype of solar power being the perfect solution, when they clearly haven't thought at all about the drawbacks.

Here's the problem: what is the rest of the solution? Wind? Better than solar, but on an energy density scale, still not enough. Tidal and geothermal? Not yet well implemented, and not easy, respectively. Hydroelectric is by far the closest thing to a truly reliable power source among what's described as "renewable" energy, but it's limited by the number of dams that we're willing and able to build.

Our civilization demands considerable energy to sustain itself, and to have that we need to have what's called base-load power: 24/7, plentiful, and reliable. Solar doesn't do that, and neither does wind. The only technologies which do are hydro, coal/fossil fuels, and nuclear. Fossil fuels are obviously out. That leaves us hydro and nuclear, with the smaller "renewable" techs contributing whatever they can. You know what it would cost us up front to have clean energy using hydro and nuclear? Under $300 billion, less than a tenth the cost of even getting started with solar power.