Let's ask the obvious question: why? If new sources of energy were actually economically competitive, they would already be on-line. Since they are not, they are not competitive, and there is no reason to assume they would actually save energy. Energy alternatives which are not economically competitive must borrow dollars from somewhere more productive within the economy to finance them; as such, they are also draining lower entropy money (and energy) from other sectors of the economy. I doubt that a serious examination of, say, wind power, would show that it actually produces any net energy at all. In effect, like ethanol, it hides what is a larger dependence on oil because its additional net requirements are ultimately hidden inside energy demand growth.
That post is among the strangest examples of ‘Fetal-position Freeper Thinking’ I have ever read.
We don;t have advanced technologies today because they haven’t been advanced, developed, and deployed yet. In some cases they never will be. In other cases they will be developed in time.
There was no nuclear power in 1900. The Freeper of the day wonders ‘why?’ and concludes that since it isn’t on-linje yet, it will never be developed and implemented. He or she would be completely wrong.
Sorry but its posts like yours that make us all look very bad. It’s not conservatism, it’s ‘something else,’ and that ‘something else’ isn’t very insightful.