4 ms·

I would agree he has some valid points but on the whole he misses a fair bit and sounds very jaded. Like lets just do Natural Gas and Nuclear Power - which isn

I would agree he has some valid points but on the whole he misses a fair bit and sounds very jaded. Like lets just do Natural Gas and Nuclear Power - which isn't a great solution in the long run. 1. Wind + Solar are insured for 20 years but last much longer. They are still in their early phase of adoption and costs are still falling. 2. Of course energy isn't a one size fits all - so you need to be aware of all the different product attributes and comparative offerings. Just like you wouldn't deploy facebook on heroku. 3. Regulatory and political willpower take long periods of time to build/change. 4. Capital deployments in climate tech are very different than VC and returns are lower 5. Manufacturing infrastructure and business models take long periods of time to build out and get traction 6. EVs are going to change a lot of the emissions space 7. There are a lot of very entrenched companies who have been actively working to stop progress on this problem since the 90s and they remain in power. Tough inertia to break through. 8. I could go on forever. I hear that he is no longer just deploying solar, wind and ESS and is feeling disappointed that he has devoted so much time. All of that work helps move the needle and build the infrastructure, talent and capital to start deploying and cleaning up the grid. When he deployed EE capital in 2008 there wasn't the political will power (ACES regulations collapsed) and technology (most utilities didn't have smart meters). While he may not have made money he certainly helped the industry along and that is an important part of trying to solve this multifaceted complex problem. Agree with the sentiment let's not let "Perfect is the enemy of good". However let's not let these hard fought gains be for naught. edit: The OP's argument is disingenuous he's a natural gas booster, annoyed I responded in depth here.

rhn_mk1 4y ago
Agreed. It seems the author is falling into another shortsighted position after getting out of the previous one. > it’s time to be honest about all the costs and benefits of every energy source is a good advice, but then you can't just say > Solar farms need 75 times more land to produce the same amount of energy. based on a study that compares the footprint of only the facility. To be honest about the costs, you have to compare the lifetime operating costs: the area lost to mining, the infrastructure to service the facilities, and to distribute the power (wind farms are farther out, pylons and roads are non-negligible land use). Another interesting observation is: > Trillionsof dollars were spent on wind and solar projects over the last 20 years, yet the world’s dependence on fossil fuels declined only 3 percentage points, from 87% to 84%. which suggests that either solar and wind didn't take off, or they did take off but increased our hunger for energy. The author fails to consider the latter by later advocating that energy must be affordable. In fact, making energy affordable is likely to exacerbate the problem, as it drives demand high.
- svnt 4y ago
  The 87% -> 84% is disingenuous at best and probably not accurate in the first place. It represents a massive uptick in China’s carbon energy consumption while places like the USA have been flat to down and transitioned nearly 25% of energy consumption to renewables

rhn_mk1 4y ago

Agreed. It seems the author is falling into another shortsighted position after getting out of the previous one. > it’s time to be honest about all the costs and benefits of every energy source is a good advice, but then you can't just say > Solar farms need 75 times more land to produce the same amount of energy. based on a study that compares the footprint of only the facility. To be honest about the costs, you have to compare the lifetime operating costs: the area lost to mining, the infrastructure to service the facilities, and to distribute the power (wind farms are farther out, pylons and roads are non-negligible land use). Another interesting observation is: > Trillionsof dollars were spent on wind and solar projects over the last 20 years, yet the world’s dependence on fossil fuels declined only 3 percentage points, from 87% to 84%. which suggests that either solar and wind didn't take off, or they did take off but increased our hunger for energy. The author fails to consider the latter by later advocating that energy must be affordable. In fact, making energy affordable is likely to exacerbate the problem, as it drives demand high.

svnt 4y ago
The 87% -> 84% is disingenuous at best and probably not accurate in the first place. It represents a massive uptick in China’s carbon energy consumption while places like the USA have been flat to down and transitioned nearly 25% of energy consumption to renewables