Interesting viewpoint, Eric. To start I am a big fan of a nuclear + solar + wind strategy going forward. Solar does tick a lot of boxes but from my understanding the technology is not effective enough and requires far too much land mass. That is before you consider that half of any day is night.

My reason for the reply is more on your view that efficiency brings a belt-tightening strategy when we should be investing. I understand the argument in the article is that if we implemented the proposed efficiencies there would be no need for the investment. Maybe the argument is that we should be doing more on both? The opposite of burning the proverbial candle from both ends.