10 ms·

Clever writing can let you argue for any viewpoint. That doesn’t make it true. >I used to think solar and wind power were the best ways to reduce CO2 emissions

by elil17 4y ago

Clever writing can let you argue for any viewpoint. That doesn’t make it true. >I used to think solar and wind power were the best ways to reduce CO2 emissions. But the biggest reduction in CO2 emissionsduring the past 15 years (over 60%) has come from switching from coal to natural gas. Upgrading coal to gas is a great intermediate step. However, it’s not a long term solution because natural gas reserves are limited. Plus, many countries have already done it. >I used to think that the world was transitioning to solar, wind, and batteries. This, too, was false. 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%. We increased global generating capacity from 15,000 to 26,000 TWh. So green energy has supported economic and social development through electrification without adding new pollution sources. >I used to believe nuclear energy was dangerous and nuclear waste was a big problem. In fact, nuclear is the safestand most reliable way to generate low-emission electricity, and it provides the best chance of reducing CO2 emissions. Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity, but that safety comes at a financial cost. Pursuing nuclear is great but solar/wind are much cheaper.

api 4y ago
> Clever writing can let you argue for any viewpoint. More people should participate in a debate club. A common assignment is to argue eloquently for a position you don't believe in, allowing you to see how eloquent sophistry can be placed in service of any position. When it comes to technical questions like energy it should be logic, math, and real data or go home.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  The source article here uses the rhetorical method of 'once I was a true believer in X, but then I saw the light about Y, let me share the revelation with you' and then tosses out a few highly questionable stats. It's a pretty tedious PR-centric approach.
- FreqSep 4y ago
  > When it comes to technical questions like energy it should be logic, math, and real data or go home. If those questions have real implications for human beings, you need to consider more than just the technicals.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Ignoring the "technicals" when considering questions that have real implications for human beings is usually an rhetorical excuse given to focus on particular implications and ignore other, less favorable ones.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  There can be more than one logically sound way to approach a problem. In general people want to solve problems. We just disagree on the implementation because everyone thinks their approach is the only solution.
- causi 4y ago
  More people should participate in a debate club. A common assignment is to argue eloquently for a position you don't believe in, allowing you to see how eloquent sophistry can be placed in service of any position. I believe the opportunity for that has passed. Every debate competition I've watched in the last decade was just people trying to be as emotive and loud as humanly possible.
EricE 4y ago
>natural gas reserves are limited People have been claiming peak oil since the 1930's. Yawn. > So green energy has supported economic and social development through electrification without adding new pollution sources. Except for the manufacture and disposal of these "green" sources. > Pursuing nuclear is great but solar/wind are much cheaper. Solar and wind are cheaper? Ha! We already have problems recycling blades from wind turbines and most are still not at the end of their lifespan. Same for solar - what do you do with all this crap a the end of it's 20 year lifespan? *Total* cost of ownership. And never mind solar and wind still suck for base load management since we still lack cost effective energy storage that can scale at the grid level.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
  >People have been claiming peak oil since the 1930's. Yawn. Are you claiming fossil fuels aren't limited? Also, oil peak is widely believed to have been reached already https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-world-has-already-passed-peak-oil-bp-figures-reveal/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-world-has-already-passe... If the cost of extraction rises due to oil and gas being more and more difficult to access (because it's limited, obviously), you could claim demand has peaked but it would still be due to production cost (i.e production peaking). "The Stone Age didn't end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil" (Ahmed Zaki Yamani, former SA Minister of Oil) > We already have problems recycling blades from wind turbines and most are still not at the end of their lifespan. Of course we have a problem recycling things when there are to few of these things to justify setting up an industry. It isn't because we can't recycle them: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fact-check-recycling-can-keep-wind-turbine-blades-out-landfills/8647981002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fact... >what do you do with all this crap a the end of it's 20 year lifespan? They now last 25+ years: https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/ https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/ and that's based on data from 2012. > And never mind solar and wind still suck for base load management since we still lack cost effective energy storage that can scale at the grid level. Then why does RTE (French national transmission system operator) have plans to switch to 100% renewables by 2050? https://www.rte-france.com/analyses-tendances-et-prospectives/bilan-previsionnel-2050-futurs-energetiques https://www.rte-france.com/analyses-tendances-et-prospective...
corndoge 4y ago
> Clever writing can let you argue for any viewpoint. That doesn’t make it true. If you lead with this, I expect a refutation of the points in the article. But in each of the statements you take issue with, I don't see any refutation, just additional data. > However, it’s not a long term solution because natural gas reserves are limited. Does the article claim that it is a long term solution? > So green energy has supported economic and social development through electrification without adding new pollution sources. How does that conflict with what the article said? > Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity, but that safety comes at a financial cost. Pursuing nuclear is great but solar/wind are much cheaper. Again, does this conflict with anything in the article? Do you think anything in the article is untrue, as you implied?
- colincooke 4y ago
  Unless you are being extremelly pedantic than I would agree with the parent. The thesis of the article is essentially "Solar and Wind aren't the way forward, Nuclear is the way". While it is reasonable to acknowledge the solar and wind still face many challenges, the parent is pointing out that they are already doing a good job in accelerating decarbonization and Nuclear, while appealing, isn't the clear cut winner the article is saying it is.
  - xbar 4y ago
    I agree with your criticisms and support of the parent, but the thesis also included a chunk of "here is why I switched from a purely clean energy perspective to one that tolerates a bunch more nuclear." I have in the past year undergone a similar shift, so perhaps I felt more tolerant of some of the article's slickness. A few centuries of "financially expensive" nuclear energy feels like it could provide a longer runway for science to figure out some alternatives.
    - lukeschlather 4y ago
      It's really strange for me to hear people saying that. I was pro-nuclear a decade ago and thought solar/wind were pipe dreams. The cost situation is now so much in favor of solar/wind now that I no longer really see the point in nuclear. We should be subsidizing scaling up of storage technologies, not nuclear plants. If the cost of storage gets cut in half in the next 10 years, we won't need subsidies, nuclear plants will simply be boondoggles. I really don't think we should invest in nuclear until we're sure the cleaner alternatives can't scale.
usrusr 4y ago
My quick glance impression was that the author seems to dismiss renewables based on their low fraction of total energy use (including direct use that doesn't go through electricity as an intermediate step when served by fossils, e.g. transport, metallurgy and so on) but ignores that nuclear has never substituted those energy use case either (ignoring a few aircraft carriers and subs) Yes, a future with enough renewables to also substitute direct fossil use is quite hard to imagine. But a future with that much nuclear would be no less crazy.
modeless 4y ago
Yeah, I thought this point in the article was off target: > Trillions of 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%. Isn't this because we are at the beginning of an exponential curve? Or at least a sigmoid curve. That money wasn't wasted. A growth curve will look like nothing much until suddenly one day it takes over.
- alex_duf 4y ago
  Also let's compare apples to apples and check how much money was spent to generate the 87% of energy... I'm guessing it's much higher than the trillions Edit: and let's not forget that the capital spent on moving the needle to 84% will keep generating energy at marginal cost.
- jdvh 4y ago
  It’s by no means a given that wind/solar will be a major source of energy for the long term. If we’re lucky advancements in wind/solar and energy storage will make it a big part of our future energy supply. If we’re unlucky we’ve spent many trillions and made very little headway towards a more sustainable future. Maybe the solution will turn out to be molten salt nuclear along with synthetic oil and carbon capture. Maybe something else altogether. Who knows, it’s still early. I don’t think we should presume solar/wind will someday take over, and I’d like to see an “all of the above” energy strategy instead.
ShockTohp 4y ago
But solar and wind are no where near sustainable, or efficient. They are extremely fragile and have serious detrimental effects on their local environment. Nuclear is the best option and gas is a massive improvement. The whole point of this article is that we are chasing a utopian ideal instead of actually fixing the problems. Once again, perfect is being the enemy of improvement.
- jakewins 4y ago
  The current state of Frances nuclear fleet would disagree with your position.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  Solar and wind are just fine as generation sources, provided that you consider solar / wind + storage as the whole generation system and base your arguments and costs on that number. When you consider both together solar and wind are pretty expensive but have nice properties as far as carbon generation. Solar and wind by themselves are somewhere between mildly useful and actively very bad in terms of grid stability.
- ZetaZero 4y ago
  How are solar and wind not sustainable or efficient? We've just recently hit the 20% mark here in the US. I'm all for a smart blend of nuclear/wind/solar/etc to achieve clean energy https://electrek.co/2022/05/10/us-hits-a-record-20-of-electricity-from-wind-and-solar-in-april/ https://electrek.co/2022/05/10/us-hits-a-record-20-of-electr...
  - TheBlight 4y ago
    How does solar work in the winter in northern latitudes?
    - totalview 4y ago
      Alaskan here; it doesn’t work so hot in the winter months. Even if they are kept clear by maintenance workers (not that hard or expensive to hire someone to clear snow from a panel) the sun’s azimuth is so low in the winter that there is hardly any energy produced.
throw10920 4y ago
> Upgrading coal to gas is a great intermediate step. However, it’s not a long term solution because natural gas reserves are limited. Plus, many countries have already done it. I don't see the author as arguing that we should all switch to natural gas. Rather, I believe that they're trying to illustrate what they view to be a idealistic flawed thinking pattern ("utopian energy" or "green energy maximalism" or whatever you want to call it) and calling for a more rigorous and empirical engineering-like approach where a much larger trade-space is considered - even if that new approach leads to exactly the same conclusion/solution.
- Gehlitio 4y ago
  Unfortunately if we would actually put the foot on the pedal we all would be quite surprised how well solar would work. We know for quite a while how little solar we need globally and we know how to do it but we just don't do it.
RobertRoberts 4y ago
> Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity Until there is an accident, then it's literally the worst.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Nuclear is still the safest, even including Chernobyl and Fukishima. An equivalent number of people die from solar and wind, independently. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy This is a huge problem for humanity to solve. We're more afraid of acute horrors that are statistically insignificant than we are of diffuse, but statistically horrifying dangers.
  - michaelbarton 4y ago
    Completely agree. There’s a very digestible video on why this is true as well. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ
  - RobertRoberts 4y ago
    Would you rather live near a nuclear accident or a solar farm/wind turbine accident? A simple consideration shows nuclear accidents are above and beyond the worst humans have ever experienced. There is no comparison, not even a close second.
- jdvh 4y ago
  Hydroelectric is the worst for catastrophic failure. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure Nuclear reactors are extremely safe by comparison.
- dghughes 4y ago
  It depends on the reactor type. High pressure and plutonium fuel? Sure! Low pressure and natural uranium is much safer. Thorium and molten salt reactors may be better still.
fasteo 4y ago
His credentials seem phenomenal: I went to work in construction to build energy-efficient homes, and I started a company that built composting systems for cities and businesses. I became executive director of an organization that championed green building policies and became CEO of a consulting firm that commercialized clean energy technologies and ran energy-efficiency programs. I then founded a software startup to help promote green home upgrades, and I led business development for a company making wireless power technology. This is more than "clever writing" to me and you are just adding more data that do not invalidate his points.
- jakewins 4y ago
  I think it seems like yet another environmentalist that’s realized they were wrong on nukes and is now overcorrecting. This is a “yes, and”, not an “or”. Yes we should build nukes and we should continue the massive ongoing deployment of renewables. Recall the IEA estimates at current rates of consumption, we will be out of nuclear fuel in 200 years. Replacing fossil plants with nukes would mean accelerating that consumption rate such that we will be out of fuel in 25 years or so. Yes, there are non-commercial and experimental systems to run on other fuels and extract uranium from other places, but we should not bet the planet on them panning out. We should invest in all available options.
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  Why do you trust him about his credentials? Who is paying him now? He has no articles older than 2020 on his website, and the same is true of his podcasts. Where are his thoughts prior to that?
  - 7402 4y ago
    > Where are his thoughts prior to that? They aren't hard to find. Looks like he got into YCombinator in 2016. See https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/utilityscore/ https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/utilityscore/
- boringg 4y ago
  No those credentials are not phenomenal credentials in the climate tech space.
anonporridge 4y ago
> Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity, but that safety comes at a financial cost. Pursuing nuclear is great but solar/wind are much cheaper. If fossil fuel use was burdened with the level of safety regulations that nuclear fission is, sufficient enough to make it as safe and clean as nuclear, we might suddenly find that nuclear is actually very cheap. To me it seems like a false dichotomy to suggest that nuclear is competing with solar/wind. At best it's competing with solar/wind + batteries, but in reality it's competing with natural gas and coal. And natural gas & coal have an unfair advantage because society and our governments have drastically more tolerance for it's absurdly greater lethality and pollution compared to nuclear. Fun fact, since the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was founded in the US in 1975, they have not approved ANY new nuclear sites, only a few expansions of existing sites. I honestly wonder how many deaths the NRC is responsible for by beating down nuclear development to the benefit of the fossil fuel industry.

by elil17 4y ago

api 4y ago

> Clever writing can let you argue for any viewpoint. More people should participate in a debate club. A common assignment is to argue eloquently for a position you don't believe in, allowing you to see how eloquent sophistry can be placed in service of any position. When it comes to technical questions like energy it should be logic, math, and real data or go home.

photochemsyn 4y ago
The source article here uses the rhetorical method of 'once I was a true believer in X, but then I saw the light about Y, let me share the revelation with you' and then tosses out a few highly questionable stats. It's a pretty tedious PR-centric approach.
FreqSep 4y ago
> When it comes to technical questions like energy it should be logic, math, and real data or go home. If those questions have real implications for human beings, you need to consider more than just the technicals.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Ignoring the "technicals" when considering questions that have real implications for human beings is usually an rhetorical excuse given to focus on particular implications and ignore other, less favorable ones.
infamouscow 4y ago
There can be more than one logically sound way to approach a problem. In general people want to solve problems. We just disagree on the implementation because everyone thinks their approach is the only solution.
causi 4y ago
More people should participate in a debate club. A common assignment is to argue eloquently for a position you don't believe in, allowing you to see how eloquent sophistry can be placed in service of any position. I believe the opportunity for that has passed. Every debate competition I've watched in the last decade was just people trying to be as emotive and loud as humanly possible.

EricE 4y ago

>natural gas reserves are limited People have been claiming peak oil since the 1930's. Yawn. > So green energy has supported economic and social development through electrification without adding new pollution sources. Except for the manufacture and disposal of these "green" sources. > Pursuing nuclear is great but solar/wind are much cheaper. Solar and wind are cheaper? Ha! We already have problems recycling blades from wind turbines and most are still not at the end of their lifespan. Same for solar - what do you do with all this crap a the end of it's 20 year lifespan? *Total* cost of ownership. And never mind solar and wind still suck for base load management since we still lack cost effective energy storage that can scale at the grid level.

rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
>People have been claiming peak oil since the 1930's. Yawn. Are you claiming fossil fuels aren't limited? Also, oil peak is widely believed to have been reached already https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-world-has-already-passed-peak-oil-bp-figures-reveal/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-world-has-already-passe... If the cost of extraction rises due to oil and gas being more and more difficult to access (because it's limited, obviously), you could claim demand has peaked but it would still be due to production cost (i.e production peaking). "The Stone Age didn't end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil" (Ahmed Zaki Yamani, former SA Minister of Oil) > We already have problems recycling blades from wind turbines and most are still not at the end of their lifespan. Of course we have a problem recycling things when there are to few of these things to justify setting up an industry. It isn't because we can't recycle them: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fact-check-recycling-can-keep-wind-turbine-blades-out-landfills/8647981002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fact... >what do you do with all this crap a the end of it's 20 year lifespan? They now last 25+ years: https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/ https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/ and that's based on data from 2012. > And never mind solar and wind still suck for base load management since we still lack cost effective energy storage that can scale at the grid level. Then why does RTE (French national transmission system operator) have plans to switch to 100% renewables by 2050? https://www.rte-france.com/analyses-tendances-et-prospectives/bilan-previsionnel-2050-futurs-energetiques https://www.rte-france.com/analyses-tendances-et-prospective...

corndoge 4y ago

> Clever writing can let you argue for any viewpoint. That doesn’t make it true. If you lead with this, I expect a refutation of the points in the article. But in each of the statements you take issue with, I don't see any refutation, just additional data. > However, it’s not a long term solution because natural gas reserves are limited. Does the article claim that it is a long term solution? > So green energy has supported economic and social development through electrification without adding new pollution sources. How does that conflict with what the article said? > Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity, but that safety comes at a financial cost. Pursuing nuclear is great but solar/wind are much cheaper. Again, does this conflict with anything in the article? Do you think anything in the article is untrue, as you implied?

colincooke 4y ago
Unless you are being extremelly pedantic than I would agree with the parent. The thesis of the article is essentially "Solar and Wind aren't the way forward, Nuclear is the way". While it is reasonable to acknowledge the solar and wind still face many challenges, the parent is pointing out that they are already doing a good job in accelerating decarbonization and Nuclear, while appealing, isn't the clear cut winner the article is saying it is.
- xbar 4y ago
  I agree with your criticisms and support of the parent, but the thesis also included a chunk of "here is why I switched from a purely clean energy perspective to one that tolerates a bunch more nuclear." I have in the past year undergone a similar shift, so perhaps I felt more tolerant of some of the article's slickness. A few centuries of "financially expensive" nuclear energy feels like it could provide a longer runway for science to figure out some alternatives.
  - lukeschlather 4y ago
    It's really strange for me to hear people saying that. I was pro-nuclear a decade ago and thought solar/wind were pipe dreams. The cost situation is now so much in favor of solar/wind now that I no longer really see the point in nuclear. We should be subsidizing scaling up of storage technologies, not nuclear plants. If the cost of storage gets cut in half in the next 10 years, we won't need subsidies, nuclear plants will simply be boondoggles. I really don't think we should invest in nuclear until we're sure the cleaner alternatives can't scale.

usrusr 4y ago

My quick glance impression was that the author seems to dismiss renewables based on their low fraction of total energy use (including direct use that doesn't go through electricity as an intermediate step when served by fossils, e.g. transport, metallurgy and so on) but ignores that nuclear has never substituted those energy use case either (ignoring a few aircraft carriers and subs) Yes, a future with enough renewables to also substitute direct fossil use is quite hard to imagine. But a future with that much nuclear would be no less crazy.

modeless 4y ago

Yeah, I thought this point in the article was off target: > Trillions of 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%. Isn't this because we are at the beginning of an exponential curve? Or at least a sigmoid curve. That money wasn't wasted. A growth curve will look like nothing much until suddenly one day it takes over.

alex_duf 4y ago
Also let's compare apples to apples and check how much money was spent to generate the 87% of energy... I'm guessing it's much higher than the trillions Edit: and let's not forget that the capital spent on moving the needle to 84% will keep generating energy at marginal cost.
jdvh 4y ago
It’s by no means a given that wind/solar will be a major source of energy for the long term. If we’re lucky advancements in wind/solar and energy storage will make it a big part of our future energy supply. If we’re unlucky we’ve spent many trillions and made very little headway towards a more sustainable future. Maybe the solution will turn out to be molten salt nuclear along with synthetic oil and carbon capture. Maybe something else altogether. Who knows, it’s still early. I don’t think we should presume solar/wind will someday take over, and I’d like to see an “all of the above” energy strategy instead.

ShockTohp 4y ago

But solar and wind are no where near sustainable, or efficient. They are extremely fragile and have serious detrimental effects on their local environment. Nuclear is the best option and gas is a massive improvement. The whole point of this article is that we are chasing a utopian ideal instead of actually fixing the problems. Once again, perfect is being the enemy of improvement.

jakewins 4y ago
The current state of Frances nuclear fleet would disagree with your position.
idiotsecant 4y ago
Solar and wind are just fine as generation sources, provided that you consider solar / wind + storage as the whole generation system and base your arguments and costs on that number. When you consider both together solar and wind are pretty expensive but have nice properties as far as carbon generation. Solar and wind by themselves are somewhere between mildly useful and actively very bad in terms of grid stability.
ZetaZero 4y ago
How are solar and wind not sustainable or efficient? We've just recently hit the 20% mark here in the US. I'm all for a smart blend of nuclear/wind/solar/etc to achieve clean energy https://electrek.co/2022/05/10/us-hits-a-record-20-of-electricity-from-wind-and-solar-in-april/ https://electrek.co/2022/05/10/us-hits-a-record-20-of-electr...
- TheBlight 4y ago
  How does solar work in the winter in northern latitudes?
  - totalview 4y ago
    Alaskan here; it doesn’t work so hot in the winter months. Even if they are kept clear by maintenance workers (not that hard or expensive to hire someone to clear snow from a panel) the sun’s azimuth is so low in the winter that there is hardly any energy produced.

throw10920 4y ago

> Upgrading coal to gas is a great intermediate step. However, it’s not a long term solution because natural gas reserves are limited. Plus, many countries have already done it. I don't see the author as arguing that we should all switch to natural gas. Rather, I believe that they're trying to illustrate what they view to be a idealistic flawed thinking pattern ("utopian energy" or "green energy maximalism" or whatever you want to call it) and calling for a more rigorous and empirical engineering-like approach where a much larger trade-space is considered - even if that new approach leads to exactly the same conclusion/solution.

Gehlitio 4y ago
Unfortunately if we would actually put the foot on the pedal we all would be quite surprised how well solar would work. We know for quite a while how little solar we need globally and we know how to do it but we just don't do it.

RobertRoberts 4y ago

> Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity Until there is an accident, then it's literally the worst.

anonporridge 4y ago
Nuclear is still the safest, even including Chernobyl and Fukishima. An equivalent number of people die from solar and wind, independently. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy This is a huge problem for humanity to solve. We're more afraid of acute horrors that are statistically insignificant than we are of diffuse, but statistically horrifying dangers.
- michaelbarton 4y ago
  Completely agree. There’s a very digestible video on why this is true as well. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ
- RobertRoberts 4y ago
  Would you rather live near a nuclear accident or a solar farm/wind turbine accident? A simple consideration shows nuclear accidents are above and beyond the worst humans have ever experienced. There is no comparison, not even a close second.
jdvh 4y ago
Hydroelectric is the worst for catastrophic failure. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure Nuclear reactors are extremely safe by comparison.
dghughes 4y ago
It depends on the reactor type. High pressure and plutonium fuel? Sure! Low pressure and natural uranium is much safer. Thorium and molten salt reactors may be better still.

fasteo 4y ago

His credentials seem phenomenal: I went to work in construction to build energy-efficient homes, and I started a company that built composting systems for cities and businesses. I became executive director of an organization that championed green building policies and became CEO of a consulting firm that commercialized clean energy technologies and ran energy-efficiency programs. I then founded a software startup to help promote green home upgrades, and I led business development for a company making wireless power technology. This is more than "clever writing" to me and you are just adding more data that do not invalidate his points.

jakewins 4y ago
I think it seems like yet another environmentalist that’s realized they were wrong on nukes and is now overcorrecting. This is a “yes, and”, not an “or”. Yes we should build nukes and we should continue the massive ongoing deployment of renewables. Recall the IEA estimates at current rates of consumption, we will be out of nuclear fuel in 200 years. Replacing fossil plants with nukes would mean accelerating that consumption rate such that we will be out of fuel in 25 years or so. Yes, there are non-commercial and experimental systems to run on other fuels and extract uranium from other places, but we should not bet the planet on them panning out. We should invest in all available options.
throwaway5752 4y ago
Why do you trust him about his credentials? Who is paying him now? He has no articles older than 2020 on his website, and the same is true of his podcasts. Where are his thoughts prior to that?
- 7402 4y ago
  > Where are his thoughts prior to that? They aren't hard to find. Looks like he got into YCombinator in 2016. See https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/utilityscore/ https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/utilityscore/
boringg 4y ago
No those credentials are not phenomenal credentials in the climate tech space.

anonporridge 4y ago

> Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity, but that safety comes at a financial cost. Pursuing nuclear is great but solar/wind are much cheaper. If fossil fuel use was burdened with the level of safety regulations that nuclear fission is, sufficient enough to make it as safe and clean as nuclear, we might suddenly find that nuclear is actually very cheap. To me it seems like a false dichotomy to suggest that nuclear is competing with solar/wind. At best it's competing with solar/wind + batteries, but in reality it's competing with natural gas and coal. And natural gas & coal have an unfair advantage because society and our governments have drastically more tolerance for it's absurdly greater lethality and pollution compared to nuclear. Fun fact, since the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was founded in the US in 1975, they have not approved ANY new nuclear sites, only a few expansions of existing sites. I honestly wonder how many deaths the NRC is responsible for by beating down nuclear development to the benefit of the fossil fuel industry.