6 ms·
I think clean energy enthusiasm is rational. The scientific consensus is that emissions are warming the planet, which will have large, undesirable effects. A ra
by natrius 13y ago
I think clean energy enthusiasm is rational. The scientific consensus is that emissions are warming the planet, which will have large, undesirable effects. A rational response to that is to limit emissions. We haven't done so, which seems like the irrational link in the causality chain here.
- drumdance 13y agoIt may be a rational policy response, but not a rational market response. Tragedy of the commons, negative externalities, etc.
- kiba 13y agoNot necessarily, especially if you have emerging clean energy technology coming online.
- NoPiece 13y agoKleiner's investments were in solar panels and lithium ion battery powered cars that were at best small improvements on old technologie that weren't efficient enough. If someone has a fusion reactor coming online, invest in that instead.
- ryguytilidie 13y agoSo is this to imply that we should stop doing things that benefit the planet and the human species if we believe it will have a negative economic impact? Obviously I'm not arguing KP should be the ones doing this, but your point seems to imply that these actions are only rational if the market supports them and you make a profit.
- drumdance 13y agoI said it's a rational policy response. But it's not a rational market response in the current environment. KP is a market actor that was betting on the viability of that market. So far it's not working. There are other ways and means to effect change besides the marketplace. I never said anything about stopping "doing things that benefit the planet."
- NoPiece 13y agoThere a lot of reasons Kleiner was foolish without even touching the global warming debate. $100k electric sport cars aren't a real solution to global warming. There is cheap abundant politically connected dirty energy. There is abundant clean cheap natural gas. Even people who believe that global warming will have large undesirable effects aren't necessarily willing to spend more money to do something about it. It isn't necessarily rational to bet on people behaving rationally. -- edit: I am not arguing against electric cars, especially cheap ones. But fancy Fisker $100k electric cars were rich people's vanity toys, not global warming solutions.
- kiba 13y ago$100k electric sport cars aren't a real solution to global warming. Of course they are! With electric cars, it doesn't transmits carbon, plus it can get cheaper energy from the grid. Of course, coal plants are still dirty, but they are more efficient than using gasoline in ICE, and ICE only converts like 30% to forward motion. All that is left is to improve and drive the cost of solar panels into the ground until they are competitive with oil and coal.
- rdl 13y agoI haven't seen a good analysis of gas (from the ground) to ICE in mpg, vs. electricity from coal (in the ground) with grid losses and batteries, with the capital costs of the vehicles amortized. I'm not sure what the best comparison is -- dollars, kilos of CO2, other emissions, etc.? Obviously the US grid isn't even 100% coal, and we're presumably moving toward more and more NG and renewables at all times, but it would be interesting to quantify this over time.