Reply #69: OK, I searched for a summary of it, since you couldn't find us one

[muriel_volestrangler]

and since that paper is subscription-only on the Science site (something you obviously haven't bother checking before presenting it to us).

The important points made in the article are:

"Energy sources that can produce 100 to 300% of present world power consumption without greenhouse emissions do not exist operationally or as pilot plants."

Improved efficiency in use of fuels is possible, although many uses are already very efficient.

"10 TW from biomass requires >10% of Earth's land surface, comparable to all of human agriculture." And, we are now using 12 TW, and we will use around 30 TW by mid century. Already, by 2008 the demand for biofuels collided with the demand for more and better food in developing countries leading to soaring food prices and food riots in many countries.

"The electrical equivalent of 10 TW requires a surface array ~470 km on a side (220,000 km2). However, all the PV cells shipped from 1982 to 1998 would only cover ~3 km2"

"The main problem with fission for climate stabilization is fuel...Current estimates of U in proven reserves and (ultimately recoverable) resources are 3.4 and 17 million metric tons, respectively ...At 10 TW, this would only last 6 to 30 years--hardly a basis for energy policy.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/environment-book/energyE.html

So its summary is: further work is needed, on efficiency or new technology. Now, your argument is that this is wrong; but you just asserted that, without an attempt at explanation.

Your claim "Existing technologies are completely able to deliver the fundamental infrastructure" is at odds with what that paper said.

So, yet again, I still have to point out you haven't backed up your position at all. You've linked to something that disagrees, and then said "but they're wrong".