> They're not arguing it's an economic harm to decarbonize, they're pointing out that it cannot physically be done, at all, without some way of storing energy.
If this was true why is the US economy doing so well in the transition off carbon based fuels while being the most inclusive in history[1]?
> This is especially true if you do not classify nuclear energy as green energy
But nuclear is not green [2], and labelling it as such is just green washing.
> If this was true why is the US economy doing so well in the transition off carbon based fuels while being the most inclusive in history[1]?
Because we have not gotten to the point where storage, and particularly long term storage, would make sense to build. I mean, why synthesize a chemical fuel when we're still burning so much natural fuel?
Because we have not gotten to the point where storage, and particularly long term storage, would make sense to build. I mean, why synthesize a chemical fuel when we're still burning so much natural fuel?
Long term storage is a last 10-20% thing.