Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)

I agree with Elroch. It doesn’t sound as crazy as some other proposals, but risks throwing the baby away with the bathwater. And geniuses often have some things that are irrational or unusual. Gets singled out because they are geniuses, probably because excelling in one field makes people expect you’ll excel in another.

Elroch is correct that its better to let the sun in and use it. Correct.
You have to let the sun in anyway for multiple reasons.
The issue is that it doesn't 'win' for renewables to compete with carbon burning for more of a share.
Carbon burning is increasing.
That's what climate reacts to. 
It doesn't care if renewables get more of the increase in demand for electricity.
Carbon burning still increases anyway. Even if its share goes down.
its a minor paradox but causing major increasing damage worldwide.
For renewables to 'win' - they have to knock out and replace and defeat carbon burning not just compete with it.
Renewables have to knock carbon down on the canvas so it can't get up - not just get more points.

Oil and coal producers maintain profits whether the global power needs grow or not.

Solar and wind manufacturing profits rely on constantly expanding market to be comparable to fossil fuel production.

Fuel producers are not energy suppliers nor manufacturers anymore than paint manufacturers paint houses.

The producers of solar panels do not gain profits from their use. it's a one time sale.

You are talking about profitability of the solar/wind market and comparing it to solely drilling for and refining a fuel.

Also, much of electricity is controlled or outright owned by the government so profitabilty is not an issue. Efficiency is and surely a fuel requirement of zero equals excellent efficiency

Publicly owned utilities:
In the US, publicly owned utilities account for 15% of net electricity generation, 12% of transmission, and nearly 50% of distribution lines.
Government control of generation:
In Europe, a significant portion of power generation, particularly in the nuclear sector, is attributable to national governments. For example, in the EU, 85% of power generation from the 20 largest generators is attributable to national government.

To go back to my original assertion, oil company profits are from the sale of fuel unrelated to electrical distribution. Solar panels are profitable for the manufacturer at the point of sale, unrelated to their use supplying electrical needs.

Oil companies have no incentive to switch to producing solar panels since it's a one time sale item unlike oil which is a constant need commodity.

That was my point.

If oil companies also manufactured devices that burned oil a comparison could be made

for profitability for them to switch industries.

You are comparing the profitability of supplying energy with either oil or solar. Oil companies just produce oil.

Regarding public vs private ownership:

I repeat:

Publicly owned utilities:
In the US, publicly owned utilities account for 15% of net electricity generation, 12% of transmission, and nearly 50% of distribution lines.
Government control of generation:
In Europe, a significant portion of power generation, particularly in the nuclear sector, is attributable to national governments. For example, in the EU, 85% of power generation from the 20 largest generators is attributable to national government.

As I said, "much of".

To beat a dead horse:

This is a snapshot of the petroleum industry in the USA.

In 2024, the total payroll for the U.S. oil and gas industry reached $168 billion on profits of 244 billion. The US government gained 40 billion in profits from oil on government land

This figure includes wages across various sectors within the industry. Crude Petroleum Extraction had a payroll of $19.1 billion, while Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations accounted for $23.9 billion. The average annual wage for the industry as a whole was $81,808.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Total Payroll: $168 billion
Crude Petroleum Extraction Payroll: $19.1 billion
Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations Payroll: $23.9 billion
Petroleum Refineries Average Annual Wage: $172,191, according to Yahoo Finance
National Average Wage (all oil and gas): $81,808, according to TIPRO.

Over two million employees work directly in the industry and an additional twenty two million work in supporting industries like distribution and equipment.

.......

To expect that this industry, which produces gas and oil products and has no involvement in the production or distribution of electricity, has any incentive to stop what they are doing and go in another direction is a silly notion.

They are not manufacturers. They have no reason start building solar panels, wind turbines or get involved in electrical production.

They own or lease vast areas for drilling and storage of their products. They have neither the facilities nor the skill sets to begin to be competitive in the alternative energy market.

They are immensely profitable and have the support of key government offices.

The solar and wind industry must defeat them on the battlefield. Without subsidies it will never happen. It may not happen even with them.

And this is just in the USA.

@Elroch
You're well educated plus you're living in the UK - a country famous for education.
And while its not necessary to have a good education to understand manmade climate change - 
it helps.
In other words - from a UK perspective things like solar power and wind turbines have the potential to knock carbon burning for electric power - down and out.
But when you look at countries like the US and their extra emphasis on private enterprise and/or moneymaking from carbon fuel then such potential is stymied. Roadblocked.
-------------------
Carbon fuel for electric power is a big moneymaker.
And a very large group of people in the US have the power to block the huge development of renewables that it would take to knock carbon burning down and out.
And they use that power to so prevent such development.
The result is that renewables only compete.
They don't knock out the world's enemy. Burning carbon fuels for electric power.

It used to be so hard to even travel across the oceans - much less do a lot of commerce.
It could take two months or more to reach America. And somewhat perilous too.
They even called the Americas 'the new world'.
It could take a year to reach Australia. Even 200 years after Columbus and America.
---------------------
Point: the world was seen as 'many worlds' back then.
Did anybody ever conceive that mankind could negatively affect the climate of many regions around the world?
Now its just one world. WIth one crew.
But coal and natural gas companies and companies that burn those fuels for electric power don't see it that way.
They continue to see it as many worlds and many businesses and its each one of them against the rest of the world's businesses and its their business against the rest of the world(s).
There's other similiar mentalities.
'our city against your city'. Our state against your state. Our business against your business.
What does it take for them to wake up?
Even in Florida - the state of the US hardest hit by hurricanes with insurance costs going through the roof - they're not waking up.
Its like they're saying 'Bring it on'.

It's not the people living in Florida, paying the increasing insurance rates, suffering the storm damage and even the loss of billions in tourism (from a different cause).

It's the bone headed government figures.

This is why it's increasingly difficult to move positively to solve the climate issue. Voters do not have the power big business has.

Discussing climate is not possible without at least admitting people's opinions here or elsewhere is not the problem. Corporate ownership of politicians is.

I have to say that, in the likely scenario of a world where electricity is the large majority of the energy market, this notion that the hardware (PV, wind turbines and storage) effectively replaces the power station market AND the fuel market, it is clear just how big and important that market will be.

I don't think I have thought of it in this way before, but the world will continue to need the large scale production of all of those renewable technologies for replacement purposes, an industry we can expect to have a value comparable to the total fossil fuel AND power generation markets now.

This is certainly an argument for strategic development of these industries throughout the world. Currently, PV and battery production is highly concentrated in China simply because of price competition. Everyone likes good value.

I have another big idea which is that the effective use of AI and robotics are going to greatly reduce the competitive edge in manufacturing that China (and some smaller countries in Asia) have at present, making this redistribution of manufacture easier.

I agree the replacement parts industry would be huge when and if we ever get there.

Well, it's a large part of the way there. While only 30% of the world's electricity is renewable at present, about 90% of new generating capacity is renewable. This means the renewable technology industry is already providing effectively almost all of the replacement generation market for the electricity sector. This trend leads to a sector that is almost all renewable in the end (by which I mean after a generation - scuse the pun - of hardware).

Here your point is important. Replacing power stations still leaves their fuel bill to be paid in the future. Renewable energy require bigger investment for a given capacity but this is justified because the "fuel" (sunlight and wind) will be free for the 25 years of operation.

The only difference from the scenario I described is that the electricity sector needs to grow from being to engulf much of the fossil fuel sector. For example, the IEA is (I feel) rather conservative when it expects an expansion of electricity from 20% of the whole energy market to 50% by 2050. I don't see fossil fuels doing anything like that well in 25 years time. In the past I have generally been right in guessing IEA forecasts were a tad conservative.

Hopefully so but fossil fuel do more than supply electrical energy. They propel vehicles, ships, planes, trains, manufacturing and farming as well as military weapons systems. These are seperate industries all able to resist change on their own.

The steel industry alone not only uses vast amounts of coal but the carbon from coke is crucial in steel manufacturing.

This is only the tip of the fossil industry.

Paints, industrial coatings, fertilizer, lubricants, the list is endless.

Synthetics are a long way from replacing these functions and they require a healthy fossil fuel industry.

While these uses do not require burning the fuel, as long as someone drills for it, someone will burn it.

From what I've read we are already too late to reverse the warming climate. The best we can hope for is to slow it down. This may end up as a fall back/ stale mate to reduce fossil fuel use but never eliminate it.

There is already no need for fossil fuels for trains or road vehicles. The barrier is inertia, not a lack of technology.

Renewable fuels for ships have a price premium, but it is an affordable one. If it wasn't Maersk wouldn't be doing it. Air travel needs renewable fuels and there is a move to phase this in by partially replacing the kerosene with renewable fuels. Since air travel is 3% of emissions, dealing with everything else suffices (reducing emissions from air travel matters more at a time when this is added to all the other emissions). That being said, it is highly likely that renewable air fuel will eventually compete with kerosene even without allowing for the cost of emissions.

Yes inertia is my point.

A related tangent:

People can be prone throwing numbers around with little thought or knowledge.

Consider this.

A million seconds = 11 days.

A billion seconds = 31 years.

The next time someone makes a claim about millions of people or billions of people remind them of this difference between the two numbers.

One example:

Every year globally approximately 50 million people die. This number has remained relatively stable for decades.

While it may seem a lot, it represents only a tiny fraction of humans on the planet.

Slightly more than one half of one percent.