Would be happy to read your refutes of his current article since I'm also not seeing how all these (unproven) solutions are going to successfully reduce our dep

Would be happy to read your refutes of his current article since I'm also not seeing how all these (unproven) solutions are going to successfully reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Wonderful ideas. But I would like to see the code. For example: The oil refinement process basically boils the oil into various types of fuels and gasses. You get a certain amount of tar, oil, gasoline, diesel, kerosine, gas etc. Refineries are able to prioritize output to certain fuel types somewhat. But not completely and/or efficiently. In the end: If we're producing X amount of diesel we get X amount of the other types as well. The amounts of fuel produced are far too great to store. They need to be burned. It means for every number of cars, trucks and boats burning diesel there will also need to be a number of planes burning kerosine. etc. It also means that if we're moving from gasoline cars to diesel cars (because diesel has less emissions). If the demand and production for one specific type of fuel increases it will result in an increase of all the fuel types. The excess types which are less in demand would simply be shipped to somewhere else more cheaply. Or used in some other sector. We're not only having a huge dependency on fossil fuels. But the dependency is also tightly intertwined throughout various facets of society. We'll need to somehow accomplish a mass reduction across the board. I can imagine there's many green initiatives not really contributing as much as they're hoping?