And 46% isn't enough to be a sustainable energy source for such enormous countries. Even when it reaches 99% (in how many years, again?), do you not understand the gargantuan scale of such a problem as replacing oil and coal altogether with sustainable energy infrastructure?

So my analogy stands. Sorry to pop your bubble on that one.

You're having trouble seeing the forest because there's too many damn trees in your way, darling. I remind you of what you said in your OP:

[quote=@catchamber]For all to have energy, we must diversify capture, transfer, and storage. We must stop subsidizing inefficient methods, given we have cost effective and safer ones. For instance, algae fuels can replace corn biofuels and fossil fuels.[/quote]
You think sustainable energy is a life-saving, problem solving solution to the world's energy and pollution crises. Not at 46% efficiency it isn't. Not by waiting three more decades for that efficiency to crawl its way up to a practical level, either.

Too idealistic and fantastical. Not enough realism. (But then, what did I expect from someone who thinks people disagreeing with him is "insulting"? A rich imagination is a spice of life, I suppose.)