4 ms·
The development of better power technologies is ~necessary, but not sufficient, to eliminate coal (and other carbon-emitting energy sources). There are all sort
by snewman 3y ago
The development of better power technologies is ~necessary, but not sufficient, to eliminate coal (and other carbon-emitting energy sources). There are all sorts of friction effects which can delay a migration to clean power even when the economics are favorable, so direct efforts to push the decision forward are an important piece of the puzzle.
- akira2501 3y ago> The development of better power technologies is ~necessary, but not sufficient, to eliminate coal Why? Are there not other plant technologies already in existence that can pick up the base load and produce less pollution? > There are all sorts of friction effects which can delay a migration to clean power Okay, so what are those? This article and it's backing material don't go into that at all. What did this money accomplish that would not have happened on it's own? > so direct efforts to push the decision forward are an important piece of the puzzle. As I stated, the backing material makes it clear these decisions were happening anyways. So, again, what is this money actually doing? I get that there are issues, but I'm concerned that we're actually addressing them and not just green washing. Do you want to address that specific point?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Why? Loss and risk aversion in the communities where the plant’s workers live, inertia and stupidity. > the backing material makes it clear these decisions were happening anyway I’m in Wyoming. There is emotional resonance to saving coal jobs here that transcends the data.
- specialist 3y agoYes and: The psychology of "system justification" can keep people irrational for a loooong time.