> That doesn't change the fact that first and cleaner renewable energy source is consumption reduction.
1) That's not a fact
2) That sentence doesn't make any sense grammatically
3) Consumption reduction = lower quality of life & health for poor people (the rich have 0 interest in consumption reduction... do you see the davos crowd turning in their private jets?)
Of course there are limits, but new processes can be invented, it's just history. Electric cars are much more efficient than ICE ones.
First civilian jet engine designs could be efficient up to a point, then they changed designs. Laser uranium enrichment is so much more efficient that USA classified it [1]. Transformers training is more efficient.
And so on...
Assuming "cleaner" means more sustainable for the environment (not only carbon footprint, but considering biodiversity), then I think it's pretty much a fact: we are living a mass extinction right now, and that's really correlated to our energy consumption.
If it's purely about carbon footprint ("let's finish killing the biodiversity and make living on Earth as close as possible to what it would be to live on Mars"), then it's still debatable whether or not we could keep increasing consumption with the end of fossil fuels (and that's coming).
Doesn't matter. Humans are not going to accept the the massively sustained decrease in living standards that it would require, which means it is not a politically acceptable solution, and therefore not a solution.
Whereas spending some money to get us all nuclear might be. If not, we will have to spend more to metigate the effects of global warming.
If we really wanted to solve this quickly and efficiently, we could kill all humans.
1) That's not a fact
2) That sentence doesn't make any sense grammatically
3) Consumption reduction = lower quality of life & health for poor people (the rich have 0 interest in consumption reduction... do you see the davos crowd turning in their private jets?)