4 ms·

This seems like a fallacious argument. If investing earlier leads to earlier results, why aren't you complaining that we didn't start investing in renewables re

This seems like a fallacious argument. If investing earlier leads to earlier results, why aren't you complaining that we didn't start investing in renewables research in Roman antiquity? Premature investment doesn't lead to early results, just wasted money. There is an optimum time for such, and it's almost certainly true that this time wasn't in the 1970s, the technology simply wasn't possible. The 1970s do not represent a point in time in which investment/research became feasible, they represent a point in time at which it became obvious to everyone that the-then current energy technology was disappointing for a variety of reasons.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
The question I’m asking is how much faster we could have pulled forward widespread renewables deployment with an earlier commitment to the project. My (non-expert) guess is that a decade might have been possible. Your view is that -2000 years probably wasn’t possible. I don’t think we’re in any major disagreement on those points, so the interesting question is about values in between.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > The question I’m asking is how much faster we could have pulled forward widespread renewables deployment with an earlier commitment to the project. I don't think you could have gotten much of a head start. Maybe 1-2 years. I don't see you getting an extra 10 out of it, even in the best possible circumstances. Half of what makes it possible now simply didn't exist. Changes in global logistics, materials science, manufacturing capacity, and a hundred other things. If time travel were possible, and you could go back with all the knowledge and plans from today, even then 10 years is about all you could hope for. Some things can't be rushed. Sure, you've eliminated all the false paths, the bad decisions and backtracking, but booting up this part or that part of the supply chain is a slow process.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

The question I’m asking is how much faster we could have pulled forward widespread renewables deployment with an earlier commitment to the project. My (non-expert) guess is that a decade might have been possible. Your view is that -2000 years probably wasn’t possible. I don’t think we’re in any major disagreement on those points, so the interesting question is about values in between.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> The question I’m asking is how much faster we could have pulled forward widespread renewables deployment with an earlier commitment to the project. I don't think you could have gotten much of a head start. Maybe 1-2 years. I don't see you getting an extra 10 out of it, even in the best possible circumstances. Half of what makes it possible now simply didn't exist. Changes in global logistics, materials science, manufacturing capacity, and a hundred other things. If time travel were possible, and you could go back with all the knowledge and plans from today, even then 10 years is about all you could hope for. Some things can't be rushed. Sure, you've eliminated all the false paths, the bad decisions and backtracking, but booting up this part or that part of the supply chain is a slow process.