-snip-
You're still trying to say that economic and trend forecasting makes conventional solar a sure thing; it doesn't. And contrary to your simplifications, I'm not using a gut feeling but simply saying that the past history of prediction of technological gain does not bear out the optimism of the forecasts you are presenting as a sure thing.
On the demography, I HAVE read the books, and I've done the demographic pyramids and statistical analysis. India, and Brazil have massive bases in their pyramids - that spells a whole lot of people for not a whole lot of jobs. Your talk about people in China joining the middle class - that's because the definition of the middle class keeps expanding (and 100 million people in China is the proverbial drop in the bucket compared to their overall population, which you have to look at when running demographic statistics). China's pyramid is turning into a square (and is then set to become an inverse pyramid), and their social policies are all set to cause a massive problem in their productivity. If you look at REAL income figures (adjusted for inflation), the middle class the world over has not seen income gains since the late 50s, early 60s. The majority of countries have seen a decrease in their real income of their middle classes, pushing them into lower brackets. Across the world, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and demographic growth pressure is pushing the middle class into one of the other brackets. I'm getting really tired of the word undeniable and its synonyms in your posts. You're taking a very simplistic view of the world. The only reason that energy demand will see increases is because of raw population numbers and the expansion of industry in the up-and-coming industrialized nations; not because they are suddenly set to have a huge boom in their middle class.
And again, I'm saying that conventional solar is impractical for the energy demands required today, nevermind 15-20 years from now. Essentially, you (and the opinion pieces you've linked) are looking at past performance of innovation and economics and the figures of today to predict the innovation and economics of 15-20 years from now. Do it if you wish, but that doesn't put your argument on solid footing. I did not say conventional solar was stupid (boiling my post down to this unnuanced simplicity is insulting); my whole point has been that solar is this romantic renewable technology in the mind's of many people, and it really shouldn't be (for all the reasons I've listed again, and again, and you haven't addressed other than by saying some potential future advancement that is presently undefined is going to fix it). I mentioned biosolar because it is one way I could see solar
becoming a viable, large-scale technology without many of the detriments I've listed, not because it is an operating alternative
today. You seem to be thinking that my argument against conventional solar energy collection rests on the premise that biosolar is going to replace it. That's not my argument. My argument is that solar is not a game-changing technology because of the multitude of pitfalls I've pointed out previously, none of which any of your points or the points in the pieces you linked to have provided concrete information for resolution thereof. It's all speculation. Grounded speculation because it's not based
solely on ideology, but it is still speculation nonetheless.
You appear to be arguing definitively that the technology of the future will solve all solar's problems. I don't care if you have the best crystal ball in the world, that's not an argument that can be presented as absolute fact, which is precisely what you've been saying since you first typed the word's "solar will be huge." My position on solar generally is a null hypothesis: namely, that the innovation of 15-20 years is not going to do what you say it will. This isn't a gut feeling, this is pragmatism. I'd rather solve the energy problems of today and the future with the technology that we know exists now; not rely on predictions of how fantastic a romanticized renewable is going to suddenly become. The biosolar is an incidental bit of speculation on my part, but it is not, nor has it been, my core theme. I think it has the potential to eliminate some of the problems with conventional solar technology and make it sustainable for some uses, but that still doesn't solve all the other hurdles of solar power generally.
TL;DR version: unless you have a time machine stashed away somewhere, you cannot possibly substantiate any of the predictions you and the articles have made as undeniable, factual, or in any other way certain. You'd done a lot of hand-waving about research in progress now that may bear fruit in 10 years or so, but you have no means to substantiate it. Until you can do so (and I fail to see how you actually can) this argument is incredibly pointless. I'll check back periodically to see if you come up with anything, but the rest of the argument has really become a moot point at this juncture. This will likely be my last megapost on the subject.