> It's time to take a serious look at what carbon-free energy tech is on the table right now and start deploying it as fast as possible, right now, today Corre

> It's time to take a serious look at what carbon-free energy tech is on the table right now and start deploying it as fast as possible, right now, today Correct. And with the battery production capacity we have "on the table right now" would take more than a century to produce 24 hours of storage capacity. Assuming that there's going to be massive multiple order-of-magnitude capacity increase is not taking a serious look at the tech we have today, it's a hugely optimistic take on what we might have decades from now. > With reasonable battery production scaling, we will be producing 20-30TWh/year of batteries in a decade. Again, you're literally assuming that battery production figures will increase by 50-80 times within a decade. This is the complete opposite of taking "what we have on the table now", it's assuming that we'll have an industry 50-80 times larger than what we presently have. Moore's law rarely applied to produces outside of semiconductors, because most products hit bottlenecks with inputs. > But we need to go to war with the army we have right now. And again, "the army we have now" would take a century to produce only 16 hours worth for storage for the world via batteries. Actually, it'd take even more than that because after a century global electricity use will have increased substantially as the global south develops and wants amenities like air conditioning. I'm really puzzled by why you chose to close with this statement given that your proposal is to assume that our metaphorical army will be 50-80 times larger by the end of the decade.