I Have Always Been Against Fossil Fuels But Thenwhen I went into alternative energy I found that you are trading in one thing for another as both have their pros and cons. Think about it. With alternate energy how much energy are you expanding producing a solar panel so just how clean is that? So let's take solar panels as an example.
First you need to mine for the content in which the panel will be made of all the metals and silicon involved in the process--mining is extremely environmentally destructive and releases a lot of carbon in terms of the heat needed to run the equipment not to mention all the oil used to burn the motors of equipment.
Then you get the ingot which has to be shaped and made into a cell which then goes through a high heating process usually involving 2 or three high efficency heating furnaces that operate at high heats. Then each ingot being made into a cell has to be combined to form the panel which is further coated and the chemicals may or may not be toxic not to mention the coating is of things that also had to be obtained as these are elements all of which involving mining.
Now once the whole process is done how much energy and environmental expense has been needed to produce that one panel? Everything from the beginning to the end needs to be fully taken into account to see what is the net effect of the panel. Now it has however many years doing what it was is created for and that is capturing the sun's light and having as close to 0 environmental emission as possible--there will be trace amounts of chemicals from the coating being burnt off and emitted to the environment but even if we call it near 0 that is fine.
The panels are strongest when the sun is striking companies were trying to increase the effectiveness in all weather conditions but this is not easy to do and panels tend to lose energy efficiencies during these times and have not to date proven to be able to independently provide enough electricity to meet our needs so solar and other alt energy was typically used during non peak loads or times when they are most effective to conserve fossil fuel supplies. But solar has come to the point of what is called grid parity and many are effective but they still need to be coupled with other sources and energy storage systems to be able to do that and so far as it stands grid parity is all relative because solar is usually generated on a grid not an individual to individual house basis on that alone it isn't grid parity and that is why First Solar moved away from that and focuses more on what is called highly concentrated solar power with a hybrid of things that is linked to an electrical grid. sure people can get good amounts of energy and "live off the grid" while living simply but for other ways no alternative energy will not be the only source because of limitations.
Every source of energy has its strengths and weaknesses you will never be able to fully get off all and have one source nly that is a very naive way of seeing things. If that happens it will not be for 100's of years.
While oil and gas is non renewable once you burn it that is it. It still is from what I can see the least among energy options that require as much energy needed to tap into it. The problem is that once it is burnt you need more.
Wind occupies lots of land as does solar farms which are part of the highly concentrated solar energy production otherwise what you have is called building integrated photo valic bipv for short which integrates the panels into the already existing structures so that land is not taken up oil and gas does not require as much land use but it takes millions of years for it to be made and to that extent despite reading it can still be around for hundreds of years it takes millions for it to naturally come.
Hydrogen has its draw backs as well as does thermal energy etc etc.
There isn't one source that will fully satisfy our needs and also without drawbacks like I say it is very naive to think in this way. The better way is to figure out a viable energy mix that utlilizes each on their strengths while compensating for their weaknesses and I don't see oil and gas going anywhere any time soon anyways but instead of it literally driving all our energy needs let's say as I don't have a number to it it is still 50% which I know when you factor other things it is really closer to 20-30% but that is when alternative energy is made up of solar, wind, thermal, biomass, etc etc. and solar is no longer the only source.
What i suspect you will have as mentioned is oil and gas around the 20-30% mix and every other source of energy which is proven to be the most affective and least environmentally destructive take shape. At one time I was also heavily against nuclear but when I read more and more about it no I am not. Nuclear however one has to be extremely careful with the power plants to prevent meltdowns and nuclear fallout which can be massively destructive to a large portion of people. Even when nuclear is secure and safe the by products still have to be dealt with extremely carefully but it is in truth one of the cleanest burning energy sources--people are concernd about the half uranium life etc like I said if that which is being used is properly handled in the proper containment nuclear is actually quite clean but it is one that requires a lot of care and attention.
In Canada Justin Trudeau is looking to it. In various places I believe in Europe maybe as a whole it has been awhile since i read this so this may not be true 25% of the energy comes from nuclear power (meaning the whole of Europe) this may be of some places and so saying all of Europe will thereby be faulty so that is my comment of "this may not be true" But it is quite prevelant let's say because oil and gas is really costly possibly.
The bottom line is there are always pros and cons for the energy sources and I for one don't see one totally replacing all the rest that will not happen. How much and how long oil and gas will play a part is anyone's guess beyond hundreds of years. I will not be around to see what happens but as far as I know there are still hundreds of years of oil and gas available even at the current world consumption rate. The US has more of it (oil and gas) than the whole Mid East put together in the Bakken regions Utah, Wyoming, and other areas--Canada's a large part in Saskatchewan, Alberta is already huge in oil and gas--we have part of the Bakken territory. It has been ages since I looked this up as well as all other solar things as i was heavily invested in solar and did badly with the industry but still read a lot to make as informed decisions with my holdings as possible that is why I am saying what I am.
In a nutshell, in the end people even Biden will come to understand that alternative energy has its ups and downs and if anyone is objective they will keep an open mind. Like I said I was at one point absolutely against oil and gas but when I started seeing all the drawbacks with alternative energy I thought you know what oil and gas has its place just like everything else. It will and should never be an either or to anything here everything has its strengths and costs. it should be knowing how to play to the strengths of all energy sources and compensating for their weaknesses while coming up with and extremely effective and viable energy mix.
Now specifically to this--anything that "greens" any tech is a huge plus and winner. So no matter what Biden or not when this company proves its tech works it will be in high demand and as it is and people coming to realize what I have said will be flocking to the tech even though they may not have initially done so. I have come over to oil and gas but as long as the tech looks to improve the industry more so on an environmental level than a cost one. I am the same way with mining. The bottom line is you will never get away from mining--we need metals and other things for our every day things and consumption. What I am not in favor of is overmining just the way I see for gold--there is no need for it. Just have recycled gold when gold is at a high price people sell their stuff and it is melted down etc. There is tons of gold already existing it is time to put an end to mining for gold. I would say that for all adornments diamonds etc. That is just killing the environment and is absolutely stupid!!!
That said and I will have to research this further although I would imagine that alluvial mining (meaning that minerals of diamond kimberlate have broken off of their initial places by natural erosion and are carried to river beds etc where they are settled) can be recovered by the use of water etc. which may be quite a bit friendlier to the environment than underground mining etc. But there is just so much gold diamond etc out there there is no need to drill the shiate out of the Earth that I will be totally against. Unless there is an absolute practical reason not for adornment I will not be in favor especially when you can recycle things although there is a lot of heat involved in remelting the material mind you that is the same thing with recycling everything that we do and if that is still better net for environment vs producing new from scratch of course I am all for that.
I really like what I see here and I for one am not at all concerned about this as a whole as people wise up and open their eyes to energy sources that clean isn't as clean as people think they are fooling themselves just as I had believing it all along--there isn't one source of energy that I know of that doesn't have quite significant weaknesses! But all of which can be properly played to their strengths.
I wouldn't worry about any rulings because ultimately people will wise up and realize what a lay person like me has understood don't throw the baby out with the bath water!
glta