4 ms·

"Had we chosen to start investing in renewables more recently, like Brazil, we would be buying better and cheaper tech." Yeah, everyone could just wait, until

"Had we chosen to start investing in renewables more recently, like Brazil, we would be buying better and cheaper tech." Yeah, everyone could just wait, until the magic revolutionary renewable tech comes around the corner and everyone implements it at once. Except progress usually does not work like that. People do not learn to install solar panels or wind turbines over night. You want a solid growing workforce that can do that. And if not enough people are buying it, no one will produce those panels, can install or maintain them, or develope better ones. And if this doesn't happen, then we will soon really learn, what a migration crisis looks like.

wenc 3y ago
Depending on your priorities and your constraints, there's a sort of "optimal" time to enter the market. If you look at the technology adoption curve, early adopters are those with excess cash. If you don't have excess cash, your money is better spent entering the cycle later, when the technology evolution is close to plateauing (when all the major issues have been sorted out, and now the improvements are only marginal). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle For infrastructure, some countries (rich ones) can be early adopters, because early adoption means more cash outlay for technology that is still rapidly evolving and will likely be outdated soon, which requires replacement. But poorer countries might find it more prudent to be Early Majority or Late Majority adopters. Consider subway systems -- early adopters like NYC made it possible for technology to improve. But if you look at subways in Asia, many systems are far more technologically advanced than NY's MTA because they came online later, when train technology had matured and they could afford more with less $. We need early adopters, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be an early adopter.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "We need early adopters, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be an early adopter." That's right, but the time for early adopters with renewables was 20+ years ago.
  - wenc 3y ago
    And so it was. But even back then, not every country ought to have been one. The US should have been. It has the cash and the ability to continuously invest and upgrade. Papua New Guinea, maybe not. They have other things to invest in that are more pressing than bootstrapping nascent technology. That’s my point.

wenc 3y ago

Depending on your priorities and your constraints, there's a sort of "optimal" time to enter the market. If you look at the technology adoption curve, early adopters are those with excess cash. If you don't have excess cash, your money is better spent entering the cycle later, when the technology evolution is close to plateauing (when all the major issues have been sorted out, and now the improvements are only marginal). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle For infrastructure, some countries (rich ones) can be early adopters, because early adoption means more cash outlay for technology that is still rapidly evolving and will likely be outdated soon, which requires replacement. But poorer countries might find it more prudent to be Early Majority or Late Majority adopters. Consider subway systems -- early adopters like NYC made it possible for technology to improve. But if you look at subways in Asia, many systems are far more technologically advanced than NY's MTA because they came online later, when train technology had matured and they could afford more with less $. We need early adopters, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be an early adopter.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"We need early adopters, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be an early adopter." That's right, but the time for early adopters with renewables was 20+ years ago.
- wenc 3y ago
  And so it was. But even back then, not every country ought to have been one. The US should have been. It has the cash and the ability to continuously invest and upgrade. Papua New Guinea, maybe not. They have other things to invest in that are more pressing than bootstrapping nascent technology. That’s my point.