4 ms·

Yeah, well, take the time to write a realistic simulation of 300 million EVs, from motorcycles to big rigs, driven and charged differently, across 1000 cities a

Yeah, well, take the time to write a realistic simulation of 300 million EVs, from motorcycles to big rigs, driven and charged differently, across 1000 cities armed with population and other demographic data…and you quickly conclude some of these articles are delusional. It is also true that some nations will do a better job than others. And some have better circumstances and starting points. In the US? We have become so dysfunctional we would probably crumble if we added a few million EVs in most states. I was just in Zürich at a conference and had interesting conversations with experts and leaders in the energy sector; from hydro to geothermal and more. It is clear that some are taking the transition seriously, while others are not. The key differentiator is pushing ideology rather than reality. Only one of those stances gets us to the clean renewable energy future we all want.

robomartin 3y ago
Here’s a dose of reality: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/other-voices/article285017617.html https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/othe... We can be ideological, and ignore this, or realistic and face the challenges head-on. The only way we achieve a clean energy future is by being brutally honest, because that’s the only way we solve real problems.
- thebruce87m 3y ago
  I’m not sure that picking an opinion piece from a conservative publication in probably the worst state for managing energy is “reality”. Notice they are calling for more coal? Funny that. I’m not even sure that picking Texas is reasonable given the isolation of its grid which is where some of these problems stem from.
  - robomartin 3y ago
    > an opinion piece from a conservative publication With apologies and respect, that is a bigoted perspective. Humanity does advance if this is how we view each other. It is possible to have a conservative perspective and be right or wrong. It is also possible to have the opposite perspective and also be right or wrong. If you had bothered to read the article, you'd see they provide data and references. You can go and verify the claims, which boil down to wind and solar pretty much collapsing when needed due to conditions. Yet, you stopped at "Texas" and "Conservative" and that's all you needed to know about what they had to say. The source does not matter. Only the veracity or falsehood of what is being proposed does. If you stop at the source --however you choose to classify it-- you fail to use your intelligence to gain understanding. Are we to disbelieve academic publications because most academics lean to the left? How about this: Let's not believe anything a gay person says...just because they are gay. Or a black person...just because they are black. Or a white person...just because they are white. Or a child yelling "fire"...just because they are a child. How does progress happen if we behave this way? How does a gay person convince anyone of the merits of their claims if they are discounted just because they are gay? Read the article. Study the matter to a sufficient depth of understanding. Then, and only then, form an opinion or pass judgement based on understanding, not bigotry. Most people speaking on these matters do so out of abject ignorance. Few bother to take deep-enough dives into any of it. Just emotion and ideological alignment. Everyone wants to live in a clean world, with clean energy and a bright future for their kids and generations to come. That's a universal truth. I have yet to find anyone who, when asked, says they prefer filth and unbreathable air. There's another reality that escapes most, likely because few like to think beyond the headline or deeper than the superficial: Where we are today was an inevitable result of humanities reality. Up until not too many decades ago, the ONLY way for us to survive was to burn stuff for energy; to cook, move, build, heal, survive. The clean energy future we all want had to wait for such things as the invention of the transistor and its evolution into sophisticated electronics, computers, etc. Now, armed with better technology, better science, greater understanding and the ability to manufacture things we could not have even imagined just a few decades ago can we begin an energy transition that will benefit us all. The technologies we need are still in flux and in much need of improvement. The key take-away from this understanding is that vilifying half the universe as we transition to a better paradigm only serves to slow down that transition. We still have no choice but to burn stuff to make energy. That is a fact. If we hurry to transition given today's technologies all we are going to accomplish is to create a horrific ecological disaster in just a few decades. Lessons should be learned about what has happened in Germany with the demented "green" activists causing the shutdown of nuclear power plants, which led to actually having to burn massive amounts of fuel for energy...exactly the opposite of green. These people are crazy. The good news is that they are now seeing much-needed push-back in countries like Holland and Germany. The transition will likely take well into next century. And that's just fine. The world isn't going to end any time soon.

robomartin 3y ago

Here’s a dose of reality: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/other-voices/article285017617.html https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/othe... We can be ideological, and ignore this, or realistic and face the challenges head-on. The only way we achieve a clean energy future is by being brutally honest, because that’s the only way we solve real problems.

thebruce87m 3y ago
I’m not sure that picking an opinion piece from a conservative publication in probably the worst state for managing energy is “reality”. Notice they are calling for more coal? Funny that. I’m not even sure that picking Texas is reasonable given the isolation of its grid which is where some of these problems stem from.
- robomartin 3y ago
  > an opinion piece from a conservative publication With apologies and respect, that is a bigoted perspective. Humanity does advance if this is how we view each other. It is possible to have a conservative perspective and be right or wrong. It is also possible to have the opposite perspective and also be right or wrong. If you had bothered to read the article, you'd see they provide data and references. You can go and verify the claims, which boil down to wind and solar pretty much collapsing when needed due to conditions. Yet, you stopped at "Texas" and "Conservative" and that's all you needed to know about what they had to say. The source does not matter. Only the veracity or falsehood of what is being proposed does. If you stop at the source --however you choose to classify it-- you fail to use your intelligence to gain understanding. Are we to disbelieve academic publications because most academics lean to the left? How about this: Let's not believe anything a gay person says...just because they are gay. Or a black person...just because they are black. Or a white person...just because they are white. Or a child yelling "fire"...just because they are a child. How does progress happen if we behave this way? How does a gay person convince anyone of the merits of their claims if they are discounted just because they are gay? Read the article. Study the matter to a sufficient depth of understanding. Then, and only then, form an opinion or pass judgement based on understanding, not bigotry. Most people speaking on these matters do so out of abject ignorance. Few bother to take deep-enough dives into any of it. Just emotion and ideological alignment. Everyone wants to live in a clean world, with clean energy and a bright future for their kids and generations to come. That's a universal truth. I have yet to find anyone who, when asked, says they prefer filth and unbreathable air. There's another reality that escapes most, likely because few like to think beyond the headline or deeper than the superficial: Where we are today was an inevitable result of humanities reality. Up until not too many decades ago, the ONLY way for us to survive was to burn stuff for energy; to cook, move, build, heal, survive. The clean energy future we all want had to wait for such things as the invention of the transistor and its evolution into sophisticated electronics, computers, etc. Now, armed with better technology, better science, greater understanding and the ability to manufacture things we could not have even imagined just a few decades ago can we begin an energy transition that will benefit us all. The technologies we need are still in flux and in much need of improvement. The key take-away from this understanding is that vilifying half the universe as we transition to a better paradigm only serves to slow down that transition. We still have no choice but to burn stuff to make energy. That is a fact. If we hurry to transition given today's technologies all we are going to accomplish is to create a horrific ecological disaster in just a few decades. Lessons should be learned about what has happened in Germany with the demented "green" activists causing the shutdown of nuclear power plants, which led to actually having to burn massive amounts of fuel for energy...exactly the opposite of green. These people are crazy. The good news is that they are now seeing much-needed push-back in countries like Holland and Germany. The transition will likely take well into next century. And that's just fine. The world isn't going to end any time soon.