Technologies like solar and wind are actually very ugly! No one is suggesting moving to them flippantly, and certainly not because of an aesthetic. To the exte

Technologies like solar and wind are actually very ugly! No one is suggesting moving to them flippantly, and certainly not because of an aesthetic. To the extent that we can make the planet more survivable, fossil fuels is our number one energy source for making that happen, and nothing comes close. I’m a fan of solar and wind, as much as I am of hydroelectric, but they simply can’t handle the demand at their current output. Not to mention, they require energy from the burning of fossil fuels to build their own infrastructure, and then even more to provide the on-demand backups whenever the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow enough. The energy we derive from fossil fuels is precisely why we have thriving civilization and flourishing humans today. Nowhere where fossil fuels are absent do we see such flourishing. That doesn’t mean we should put our heads down and burn burn burn until the planet runs dry. It means we should acknowledge the good and the bad, and work towards a more sustainable future. In my opinion, until we come up with a better way to harness solar energy (which is what hydrocarbons actually are), we can’t lock ourselves into solar panels and batteries. There has to be something more efficient and cheaper than hydrocarbons. It’s nuclear. Nuclear is the answer. The faster we can get people, countries and continents to adopt nuclear, the faster we can move toward a future where our energy concerns effectively disappear.