2 ms·

it's just difficult to coordinate all these things top down and there's a bunch of extra infrastructure and IT, and more regulation and rules and complexity. Pe

it's just difficult to coordinate all these things top down and there's a bunch of extra infrastructure and IT, and more regulation and rules and complexity. People telling you when you can and can't do things, etc. Eh. Seems unAmerican. But given the total enthusiasm and commitment, I bet it could be made to work. But maybe we have to accept that it's gonna cost more, and that we'll probably lose on other sides. This renewable world just might not be such a nice place. Power would be less taken for granted because it would not always be available. a lot more people would have to work in the industry to keep it going (low EROI for renewables) and they wouldn't be working in other industries. Ironically, that's a plus in the article, which touts immense job creation. lol - not a very good objective. The landscape near populated areas would be dominated with wind turbines and solar plants.

noir_lord 6y ago
> it's just difficult to coordinate all these things top down and there's a bunch of extra infrastructure and IT, and more regulation and rules and complexity. People telling you when you can and can't do things, etc. Eh. Seems unAmerican. I honestly read that as "it requires people to communicate and co-ordinate in a way that is a net benefit to everyone, seems un-american" and thought yeah that seems about right. For what it's worth national grids with co-operation agreements and a strict regulatory regime absolutely do work when well implemented, the UK has had one for decades.