Well, I got PhD in physics too. And especially i dealt with thermodynamics a little bit. And you’re some how ommitting the fact that all available so called cl

Well, I got PhD in physics too. And especially i dealt with thermodynamics a little bit. And you’re some how ommitting the fact that all available so called clean sources are not even close in energy density, let alone energy production and delivery costs, to traditional sources. The difference is so dramatical, it would basically mean - we should go to stone age economically speaking to allow full replacement of energy to “green” ones. Which means basically we’re shooting in our own legs! Because weaker economies and poorer people are tend to make ecological situation worse rather than better in all Yes, there are some countries so rich and developed (or with unique weather conditions), they can afford partial replacement, just for the sake of the ecology. But I doubt US has already solved all major problems to afford such an expensive move. This is for starter: https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK8_Layton_EnergyDensities.ashx https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK... Please stop spreading such a nonsense and consider all implications if you call yourself a PhD In particular: > revolve around decarbonizing (and yes, scaling up) electricity production In general, this scaling is in 2021 near impossible or extremely costly at best, from pure thermodynamical point of view