As long as we are willing to include nuclear in that equation, than I agree.
Without a cheap storage mechanism, solar/wind/etc. cannot satisfy the baseline demand of the power grid. Yes, there are ways to do that. They also impact the environment and come with a steep cost.
Go back to bed, grandpa, with your stupid "in my day" bullshit
Rather than debate something you disagree with, you turn to insults. You're a dick.
(1) Kids of this age do not have the higher thinking skills to appreciate sacrificing something for longer term gain.
(2) If you force them use an outdated or substandard system, they will resent you, be humiliated with their friends (or more likely, lie about it to prevent that).
(3) You're not really teaching them anything useful in a practical sense. Yes, I love the Atari 2600 too. It is completely irrelevant to anyone born after 1990 except in a historical sense.
(4) Desire to learn history has to come from the seeker, not the purveyor of that knowlege. It can be encouraged, but not forced.
Repeat it with me: "This is not an AI breakthrough".
Not in this case. Men in black will make the case disappear or be dismissed for trumped up reasons.
Good luck with that.
Build huge obelisks that are inscribed with instructions for technology. At the very bottom, instructions about how to read that script using pictures. Further up, details on how to farm and build basic shelters. Higher still (and out of sight from the ground), things like electronics, power generation, etc. Even higher (not reachable by primitive ground structures) things like nuclear power and advanced topics. Thus the populace would have all the info handy to get restarted, but wouldn't be able to use the advanced stuff until they had gotten the basics right.
Disclaimer: Not my idea. Read it in a science fiction book years ago, but cannot locate the title at the moment.
oops... $129.47 billion in 2012.
My ancestors apologize to you for birthing a pathetic moron who can't properly proofread.
"The final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973"
According to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ that would be $129.47 in 2012. Now obviously we have the benefit of relatively inexpensive technology to help offset that. However we also have the burden of stricter safety standards and more expensive "available" technology as opposed to "required" technology. Hopefully the government would be pragmatic enough to select the "appropriate" level of safety. That means quantifying the numeric value of a life (factoring in all the publicity involved, future projects, etc) which is something people don't seem willing to do. I suspect that NASA is very gunshy about repeating a shuttle type disaster, and would not be able to give an upper bound to that number.
All it all, it seems pretty farfetched that this will happen to me.
Most jobs that involve sitting in front of a desk at a computer will be automated as AI improves.
Building an AI that can understand and implement business logic might be possible if the people making up that logic were somewhat logical. Or could even string together coherent thoughts.
I suspect that once we invent that AI, the 500th revision of the inconsistent and illogical "business rules" by some random jackass son of the owner will be the cause of skynet taking over.