The issue isn’t "batteries/renewables vs fossil fuel" etc. The fact of the matter is there are 7+ billion people on this planet (COVID19 notwithstanding) and everyone of them requires energy in some form or another. Even the Amazonian tribes need energy to cook with, they just burn wood as they need it.

In the 1st world countries the energy demand is at it’s highest and will continue to grow. The 2nd and 3rd world countries are not so far behind in their energy demand as their desire for “things” grows. The difference between the 1st and 2nd/3rd world is the level of technology available to apply. Albeit there is an abundance of NOT applying technology in the 1st world that is abhorrent. In ideality the 1st world energy consumption SHOULD be the cleanest after applying the tech. The 2nd/3rd world countries are likely to be dirty energy converters.

All the modern “green” solutions being bought by so called savvy consumers only serves to salve their consciences “I’m not emitting CO2” The fact is this so called low energy equipment just gets used more and more with more of them getting manufactured along the way. Very few of these consumers actually realise that their CO2 emissions, or their pollution, still happens, only far-far away!

We are so far along the energy demand curve now that to reverse our position will push us into the Stone Age, to change tack requires new technology. The problem with new technology is that it requires energy to develop and manufacture! We haven’t got to the critical mass of alternative energy provision yet. How can we forge steel using renewable energy?? Sun goes behind a cloud or the wind drops and the induction crucible is lost! There are so many things that need to be aligned before we can truly “go carbon neutral” I just fear that things will HAVE to get worse before they can get better. Lets face it though, even in the Stone Age 7+ billion people are STILL going to require a heck of a lot of energy to remain warm and eat, where will THAT come from, Amazon rain forest is looking a little thin nowadays!

In all honesty, there isn't a silver bullet for the position in which we find ourselves in first quarter of the 21st century. Looking to the heavens, the sun emits 3.846 septillion Joules/second of energy (that's 1 with 26 zeros after it) You would think some of that might help? The problem is that the earth lies 93 million miles away from the sun that means that all that energy is spread thinly, the energy per square meter is about 4000 j/s/m^2 (4kW/m^2). Converting that energy, after it has been refracted through the earth's atmosphere is a problem. PV efficiency is probably around 23-30%, distance from the equator also diminishes the solar energy harvest.

Where does it end? Well the Earth bound human race will probably expire long before the sun does. Lets face it the sun provides, has provided, all of the energy consumed on this planet. We just need to find a way to:

a) temper our appetite for energy. The sun provides energy to our neck of the woods at a CONSTANT 4kW/m^2. This number is important. b) find better ways of harvesting this energy. In saying this I'm not banging the drum for scrapping all fossil fuel usage right now, remember the sun has provided THAT energy source too!

I'm not so sure that there is such a thing as carbon neutral until we get to the critical mass point where ALL our energy is provided from a fossil free source. But to get to that point the pathway is mired in controversy.

• Batteries production has a reputation for poisonous effluent and CO2 emission
• PV production likewise
• Wind turbines are made of non-recyclable materials so the end of their lives is met in a land fill
• Nuclear has this doomsday reputation, also the waste and decommissioned equipment needs securely storing for geological times

Amidst all of this controversy the CO2 emissions continue. Then come the snake oil salesmen selling Sequestration, hmmm isn't this energy intensive? Read from the start of this article again!

There is a lot being done by a lot of people all over the world to try to answer the questions posed here and more besides. I believe that science will serve to save us from ourselves. Politicians come and go and they all try to look good jumping on and off the latest bandwagon. Some are particularly good and some are eye-wateringly bad at this. It's no surprise, really, because there are so many factors involved in making some kind of demonstrable progress. Unfortunately progress is, and probably will remain, slow here and slow progress means a short political career! Hence many politicians are a little shy in the glare of this particular pair of headlights. But to gain traction, to make better, more rapid, progress the politicians MUST support the scientists and vice versa. Look at the COVID19 pandemic this past 18 months or so. Countries where a joined up scientific / political effort has been fostered are showing real signs of coming out of their respective lockdowns soonest.

So, banging the drum for casting the fossil fuel boat adrift will cast us back to the Stone Age unless sufficient progress (in the right direction) has been made to identify the most viable alternative energy source(s) going forwards. I believe that diluting our efforts between ALL of the alternatives on offer will not bring us, quickly, to the end goal. In the same breath, though focusing on one alternative brings its own risk, that of outright failure!