Some of the arguments in that article are repeated in the book, but it's not the main thrust of the chapter I was referring to. I'm afraid I gave the book to my

Some of the arguments in that article are repeated in the book, but it's not the main thrust of the chapter I was referring to. I'm afraid I gave the book to my brother after I read it, so I can't give you an authoritative summary of the arguments in the book. As best as I can recall, the argument was renewables generally have such low power density (W/m^2) and high energy cost ($/J) that they are unlikely to be an effective solution to climate change, should climate change be as severe as we fear it might be. (Ridley is not a climate change denier, but he does think scientists' worst fears are exaggerated. Here's an audio interview with Ridley that might cover some of the same stuff in the book: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/ridley_on_trade.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/ridley_on_trade.htm...