> There is a fact that no one wants to acknowledge: In timeframes of under 20 or so years there are NO energy technologies that are clean. None. For timeframes

> There is a fact that no one wants to acknowledge: In timeframes of under 20 or so years there are NO energy technologies that are clean. None. For timeframes longer than 20 there is exactly one: Nuclear. There is nothing else. I'm skeptical of this figure, but it's not particularly relevant. The issue is whether directing energy towards renewable energy production has a better environmental impact vs directing that same amount of energy towards fossil fuel energy production. Total evaluations of the costs (in dollars, to the environment, etc.) are extremely important in comparing energy production methods, but your 20 year figure is fairly meaningless on its own.