No, not at all. In fact the vast majority of that book discusses MANY different solutions, most of which will have to be implemented to shift to a completely sustainable energy landscape. I don't think the author is necessarily bullish on nuclear fusion being practical--he's just pointing out what the possible potential is if it does so. You can mix and match whatever consumption and generation solutions you think stand a chance of being implemented and stack them up against each other and see if you have a positive balance sheet at the end of the day.Smidge204 wrote:You (and the author of that article) are implicitly assuming 100% of our energy needs need to be, or will be, satisfied by a single technology. That's beyond nonsense; it's insane.
I will say this though: if we expect to keep the current standards of living and current growth rates up, then the traditional solutions we can imagine today will not work. They are going to have to be too big and potentially compete with each other and with other needs such as food, water, living space, etc. Either something's gonna have to give or we'll have to come up with some white knight type of solution.
I personally believe that we will always lie in an equilibrium. That is, if our growth rate is not sustainable, we won't grow. It won't be like the bottle exploding, but I would be very surprised not to see an increase in conflicts over resources, and for some (i.e. those who stand the most to lose--Americans) the process will be painful. If we do achieve a sustainable energy balance, or even a surplus of energy, we will certainly find a way to use it.