![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
The main thrust of the argument seems to be two fold - it‘s not 100% is (almost nothing is) and it costs a lot upfront (so do fossil-fuel plants). Smells like like some serious astroturfing to me
The rest of your argument? The only thing I see missing is transport. It needs to scale to global levels and be free with respect to both carbon and cash
I would recommend reading Kim Stanley Robinson for better ideas than I could ever give - The Ministry for the Future and New York 2140 spring to mind.
Not a hockey fan either, but I’ve often asked this question of my friends that are. They all same the same thing: The fans enjoy and expect it. To me, it’s dumb. One team ends up a player (or two) down, and that’s when a lot fo the scoring happens. Ergo, you fight and you are more likely to lose. Pretty much any other sport in the world and you’re off the field of play, and often for a long period of time.
FWIW, this is also why I’m not a hockey fan…