I think you missed the point. The article is not arguing in favour of coal, oil or any other non-renewable energy source. He is pointing out that the "renewable" energy sources have their own sets of environmental issues that need to be addressed and shouldn't be ignored. The need for water in solar-thermal installations is a valid concern, when most solar plant installations are being planned in arid desert areas, for example. These concerns shouldn't be swept aside by environmentalists for the greater good of green energy, because if they are, the oil and coal industry would be just as happy to point them out, and the debate will be defined by oilmen instead.

TV and movie productions have become more technically elaborate over the years, evolving from what were essentially filmed theatrical productions, to elaborate and technically demanding productions that require a large industry of people to support it. In your view, how has technology changed the role and experience of acting since you started?

The point of this is that it is a controlled environment, where systems can be tested under lab-like conditions before being released into the urban "wild". Test subjects could be easily recruited to drive around in an instructed manner to replicate any given traffic pattern. This would make it much easier to debug a system before it is tested under real-life urban conditions. And given that this is a lab environment, you can also test the effect of a catastrophic system failures without any safety concerns.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

What people are actually paying for when selling virtual information like photographs and novels are the intellectual property rights pertaining to the work. It is unclear what intellectual property rights a third party developer retains. In many cases the developer of the virtual world will retain the intellectual property right (depending on the licensing agreements in force in the game) and the third party developer is merely selling a "presence" in the game. Without the creative rights associated with it, I'd argue the virtual land would indeed be of little value.

And as to your analogies, in most cases people do pay tens of millions of dollars for paintings for the original, physical copy. Reproductions, even masterfully done ones, are only ever worth a fraction of the piece.