this is you second article I have read that either lies by omission or is fundamentally just wrong.

Here is an example of ommission:

"In order to be melted, glass for example, needs to be heated to somewhere between 1500 to 1700°C (2700–3100°F), a temperature range wholly outside electric resistance heating"

Who says you use resistance heating to melt glass?

https://mo-sci.com/electric-furnaces-future-glass-manufacturing/

Never mind that there are grades of glass regularly melted in ceramic kilns.

"way above readings from Fukushima’s molten reactor cores"

So what? Nukes run at a certain temp, and glass furnaces run at a diffferent one.

" something only achievable by burning fossil fuels (mostly natural gas) and hydrogen."

Nope, do you not know about arc furnaces? Do you not know how insulation works? High temperatures can be achieved both ways, with any heat source. I mean its just an overall dumb statement.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/physicists-create-highest-ever-lab-temperature-1.880164

" but making pure aluminum from its ore (bauxite) takes 17 kWh of energy per each kilogram of metal."

Derp, ever hear of recycled aluminum? Nukes can powert high intensity process, and there is a huge effort right now to decarbonify aluminum

https://www.csis.org/analysis/decarbonizing-aluminum-rolling-out-more-sustainable-sector

There is no "tricky", three is a relatively clear path to it.

". Both of these need to be mined and shoveled onto trucks by huge diesel powered machinery (no, batteries and hydrogen won’t do it here either), then transported to a factory, where the above mentioned melting and smelting happens"

aaaand? youy seriously can't think of alternative electric methodologies to acheive the same result?

"due to the electric properties of pure metallurgical grade silicon, we can use radio-frequency or induction heating. "

Oh look, electric heat....Can't possibly use hydro or nukes to generate that electricity... huh? Also silicon isn't the only mehtod, have you bothered to look into thin films and polycrytaline, as well as triple junction concentrated solar cells?

"What about mining, transportation, refining, smelting and melting then? "

What about them? subs and aircraft carriers have nukes on them...right now. Why cant other transport devices? Plus no one says carbon production has to go to zero, just that it simply need to be offest so that it is net zero.

Everytime I think the article can't get more vacuous, you suprise me.

"there is nothing new or revolutionary in all this solar craze"

Duh. but only recently have the efficienies and costs improved that it can become a viable energy source for the planet...along with hydro, wind and nukes.

"we knew how to make them already, 64 years ago."

so? we knew how to make electric cars 100 years ago. That didnt make them good enough to pursue back then.

"But what about the unstoppable march of technology raising solar panel efficiency through the roof"

jeez. No one says it need to go through the roof, it just needs to be good enough and we are basically there.

"The answer to the question how solar cells got so efficient recently lies in their material composition. "

Oh? I thought you said we knew how to make solar cells in 1915. were you wrong then. or now?

Honestly I am bored now. every paragraph is either lying, or lying by ommisions, or you are writing on a topiv you are not actually knowledgable about.

There is no reason to bring new carbon up out the ground. That doesnt mean we must stop doing that today, it means that it is totally justified for the oil and cvoal companies to fend for themselves, get zero subsidies, and fight their own security issues and deal with their own property issues with no help from any governments.

Oil and coal can try to compete like every other business shoud.