This seems to be implying that basically all the research was done between the 2000's and now, and that scientists had been twiddling their thumbs between 1970 and 2000. Actually, scientific advances between 1970 and 2000 were critical to enable the renewables boom that we experienced since 2000.

Could it have gone faster if more funds had been made available? Maybe. But claiming that we "lost" 30 years in research on that topic simply shows ignorance about the way research works.

> US spent $5T trashing Iraq and Afghanistan. That would have paid for completely switching over to renewables, several time over.

Yeah, and if the Romans hadn't spent so much time fighting with their neighbours, we would all be eating free lunches now.