This is great. I think the summary understates his points regarding the burden on energy demand that will come into play over next several decades by developing regions. The numbers are astonishing.

Also underrepresented are his comments on just how unrealistic the assumptions are in the models calling for temperature reduction, specifically about the implications for reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. Reducing energy consumption (whether through bans or price hikes) has a known humanitarian impact in present terms. The idea that you can convince your poor neighbor that he doesn't really need to eat better or have access to more resources is a tricky problem.

pfdietz, I think the case is made quite plainly in his presentation that renewables cannot catch up to much less displace ("100%") fossil fuels anytime in the near future. If you don't see that in the sum of what he presents in the notes, I'd encourage you to watch the source material to hear him say it, sector by sector. It's full of real data from a guy that's been studying energy use in human civilization for many decades.

This link has some of the same info in PDF form: http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/JPM.2019.pd...

Nowhere does he make the case that 100% renewables is impossible. It is, of course, a tall order, but maintaining and growing a global energy infrastructure OF ANY KIND is a tall order.

Smil has argued that energy transitions happen only slowly, but I think he's being misled because the current rate of cost decline in renewables is unprecedented in its speed, as is the willingness of increasing numbers of countries to impose CO2 taxes or the equivalent.

Second factor is historically new energy sources required rolling out different technologies to utilize it. And you often couldn't switch back and forth. Renewables are generally about electric power and electron is an electron and we already have fully built out distribution networks.

And you're right about regulatory pressure being a big motivator.