Lomborg is a breath of fresh air in the bleak climate change environment. His is a positive viewpoint and is worth a good go.
In the meantime we can assume ever increasing prices for fossil fuel energies which helps with one side of his argument at least.
I believe there are prototype wave energy power plants in operation off Hawawii and Oregon at least which promise competetively priced electricity.
It is not only desirable but vital that the next generation of energy sources be at least as cheap as the current sources. Less efficient energy generation means less productivity means we are less able to develop new technologies.
On a different note, is anybody aware whether any feasability study has been done into increasing the Snowy Mtns Authority hydro output

I don't know much about wave generating gear in Hawaii, but there is a multi billion dollar one dragged ashore, & rusting away in Spain.

Was reported as the world beater in alternate energy, before it failed to work well enough to bother with.

It seems that most economic analysis related to energy forget to consider the laws of thermodynamics. If they did, they would probably conclude that most, if not all of the alternatives will never be able to replace fossil fuels. If this was the starting assumptions about peak oil/climate change mitigation would focus on conservation. Thermodynamics will trump technology every time.

The other concern is energy efficiency. Historically increased efficiency leads to increased consumption (jevons paradox). Maybe on the down slope of peak oil etc this will change, who knows? The other factor is that increased efficiency is subject to diminishing returns.
Taken together this implies that what we need is " systemic conservation" of our energy reserves to avoid being on the verge of crisis indefinitely. Example: growing food locally removes the requirement to transport food nationally or internationally. This would remove the current systemic requirement to expend energy in transporting/storing food.

It seems that most economic analysis relating to energy forgets to consider the laws of thermodynamics. If they did, they would conclude that most, if not all, of the known alternatives will never be able to replace fossil fuels.

The other issue is energy efficiency. Historically increased energy efficiency has only ever led to increased consumption (jevons paradox). Maybe this will be different on the downslope of peak oil (then coal and gas) but I would bet a few dollars that humans will always use every available BTU of energy they can. The other consideration here is that increased energy efficiency is subject to diminishing returns.

Take these factors together and I would suggest that an approach we need to take is "systemic conservation." That is we need to remove the systemic requirement to use energy. For example, if food was produced locally, then the systemic requirement (and its associated energy costs) to transport and store food nationally and internationally would dissappear. In this way we could maybe step back from the verge of a perpetual energy crisis that we now face.

The author and some of the commentators make the point well that research is not only high risk generally but that in this instance there are also good reasons why cheaper options may not be available with less dense renewable energy resources. However the point should always be made that there are huge gains to be made from more efficient vehicles, machines and more modest need for energy through good building and machine design: research should be directed here.

However lets also keep up the debate on the CO2-Temperature relation. It is not a given despite the clamour that it is. In fact, it is only an association over a very limited time period. The association falls away completely over longer periods and there is no proof of causation. Predicting climate change is complex and CO2 is just one small factor. It is rising undoubtedly - that is the one fact on the table - but it would have to be orders of magnitude higher for there to be concern.