Hmm. I'm having a hard time being sad about bootstrapping renewable energy production capacity using nonrenewable energy. Sure, panels have a finite lifespan --

Hmm. I'm having a hard time being sad about bootstrapping renewable energy production capacity using nonrenewable energy. Sure, panels have a finite lifespan -- and then in 2040, if we succeed, all new panels will be built using renewable energy. (In other words, it's a one-time cost, rather than an ongoing cost.) Ethanol and wood pellets can absolutely be produced sustainably and with positive EROEI, so I'm not sure what the connection is here. Yes, they're not amazing from a pollution perspective, but they can be net-zero from an eCO2 perspective. One take here is that capitalism has a lot of flaws, but price action stimulating investment isn't one of them. There are quite a few executives with $$$ in their eyes figuring out how to get the raw materials needed for this transition. Moore's law has lasted us nearly 60 years, a result of a mix of process improvements--old ideas done better--as well as new techniques. Pointing out how our current resource extraction isn't enough to satisfy the world's energy needs in 20 years is a little bit like pointing out that current tech isn't enough to keep Moore's law going. It's not wrong! But it also rests on the assumptions about what's possible that may not be true.