[pfdietz]

> I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it hasn't been done yet.

So, what point are you making then? That because it hasn't been done it shouldn't be done?

In any case, there's a perfectly fine explanation about why it hasn't been done: people largely can burn cheap fossil fuels and not have to pay for the negative externalities that imposes on the world.

[gwright]

You are trying hard to misunderstand me. Don't communicate as if it is a solved problem if your solution has yet to be actually been built and successfully demonstrates the feasibility of the solution.

I'm not sure how to interpret your last sentence. A demonstration project, especially subsidized by the government, doesn't need to adhere to any sort of market pressure regarding the price of fossil fuels.

[pfdietz]

It's a solved problem in the sense that it involves components that are all understood to work, integrated. This is the surest kind of innovation.

Now, we don't know how cheap it will ultimately be once these things are integrated and run down their experience curves. But pretending there's any serious doubt that they would work is more dishonest than arguing they would.

[gwright]

Your definition of "solved" is quite a bit different than my definition of "solved". Especially if you are going to just pretend that the economics aren't to be included in the solution.

[pfdietz]

Yes, your definition of "solved" is useful for nothing but obfuscation and denial. Mine is useful for planning what to do.

[loeg]

Come on.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html