Appreciate this side tangent, I hadn't heard of the "buy forest, get credits" offset but of course that exists. Anything that can be an externality will be without actual teeth on regulations. Looking forward to part two.
Historically I love your AI work and publicly praise it.
This is a butchered rant that sounds like from ten years ago, until you finally got on to SMR nuclear which I support.
Please stick with Artificial Intelligence.
Until nuclear is online unplug from the electric grid, turn off the lights, buy renewable so you can stop hating the necessary fossil fuel industry and the world around it
Disgustedly yours, MB
PS it’s as though the crippling chocolate milk addiction got the best of you on this one. Hope you regain your health soon.
1. Thsi is AI. I can't do AI research if the world burns and there is large scale unrest because of climate death. If you disagree with the data, tell me where you disagree.
2. Noone argues that FFC isn't needed. The hate is on the forced dependency that is created, and the systematic destruction of green alternatives/science. That's also why I specifically called out the amount given for Fossil Fuel expansion. And FYI anto Nuclear lobbying is one of the strongest wings in the FFC. That fearmongering we don't have nuclear energy large scale to begin with.
3. I will write articles that I think are most valuable topics that I can talk about. If that bothers you, either ignore them, or support the many other fantastic AI writers in the world. I recommend many on this newsletter so you will not have any difficulty finding them.
Again if you dislike my treatment of facts, which facts I chsoe, or my analysis of the facts, you're free to share that and I will always consider that.
I take “some” issue with much of what was said, far too much to respond to in one sitting.
2. Noone must know that fossil fuel generation (or hydro generation) is essential because of the “way” rotational mass generation stabilizes the grid where renewable alone, and even with batteries, cannot.
Grid design 203.
Furthermore “facts” are often nothing more than easily accessible information or popular opinion. A great number of facts here were opinion refuted by energy engineers on other Substacks where the relative merit of FFC and hydro and renewable and batteries are a main focused and discussed by energy experts who have designed and constructed all of the above.
Cheers and I hope you and I feel friendly again soon.
My article is not that Fossil Fuels are unneccessary. It's that the industry is pretending that they're working on fixing the issues, while investing in things to make everything worse. AND that they know they're doing this (as broken down extensively in the comms reports).
There is a Huge difference in what you're claimign I'm saying and what I'm saying.
Until most renewable energy is recognized as a supplemental “side dish” to the main course—rotating generation—well-intentioned renewable power communities will likely continue to demonize fossil fuels (even though they should collaborate). This is especially important because rotating generation remains essential for maintaining the grid’s base load and stabilizing frequency.
In my career, this is the third round of solar and wind subsidies, and the third time the programs have declined for both engineering and financial reasons. That said, new iterations do improve the sustainability and the return on investment (ROI) of green investments.
Please follow the link below to a Substack author’s opinion.
Renewables are still to unstable to be the primary sourtce of energy everywhere. That much is well understood (hence why so much research and calls for more battery investments and transmission to make things more efficient). And until nuclear is built out more aggressively fossil fuels are going to have to be the main base. Noone is denying either of those.
The problem is 3 fold--
1. Lobbying and misinformation campaigns actively push down the alternative investments in RnD (see the relatively low percentage of investments in that than fossil expansions).
2. Resources are instead being poured into fossil fuel expansions, which increases dependency on them instead of building more sustainable paths forward.
3. All compounded by very short term timelines.
For an alternatoive look at how China has built out an insanely powerful grid with reniewables and nuclear. Electrucity has been one of the core drivers for their AI boom as well (their grid has more energy, greener energy, and cheaper energy all at once). We're starting to more success in other parts of the world as well. The piint isn't to remove fossil fuels tomorrow, it's to handle 40-70% of the energy needs in the next 5 years until we can build out a prper solution. Because the alternative is the status quo, which is not acceptab;e
I agree wholeheartedly with your comprehensive description of the lobbyists and revolving doors between government and enterprise.
My opinion is that both parties suffer from this disrespect and abuse of the trust and power provided by the citizens.
Also, it is my opinion that most members of all political groups spend more time collaborating on how to split deals (that enrich their constituents and/or themselves) than on the public interest they promised to represent while getting elected (nothing new here unfortunately).
Fact: I’ve been accused of being a cultist, it is true, I’m with this group of chocolate milk habit supporters or mitigators.
A point that is key and from which a multitude of positions pivot (while polarizing communities) is climate change.
Picking different start / end dates and adjusting the filters and bench mark criteria for comparison can completely change the outcome: are we warming, cooling, is weather change per geographic area meaningful or incidental to the norm over time, not significant or significant depending on whose beach it is.
Personally I’m interested in learning from the current top three groups who claim climate science expertise, this while each group usually says the others are wrong. It will probably be an apple to orange to banana comparison. The tide is shifting away from a belief in climate change (while relaxing constraints- right or wrong).
Of course fossil fuels were against the competition of nuclear power, most everyone else was afraid of nuclear including our environmental friends until we needed the refurbished nuclear islands of off grid stand alone power for data centers. Is it true that the Sierra Club got on the nuclear train and green washed it into acceptance? My nuclear friends say there is no nuclear waste problem, only a growing stockpile of partially used rods for future consumption (is this true or just marketing?), I don’t know.
People seem to use more, not less electricity. Stop using electricity and let fossil fuel go bankrupt.
In a more perfect world we would have unlimited no impact hydropower spinning massive rotors generating stable frequency electricity as the base load supplier to the electric grid to be augmented with weather interruptible renewable (supplemented with toxic heavy and light metal batteries). This until the next better energy iteration comes along in renewable and SMR nuclear. As you have noted of renewable are not environmentally friendly, they just aren’t fossil fuel, after massive quantities of fossil are consumed to create them.
"Personally I’m interested in learning from the current top three groups who claim climate science expertise, this while each group usually says the others are wrong."-- who are tehse groups in conflict with each other. Most climate scientists agree with the impact and presence of climate change and the global heatwaves (not to mention that we are seeing massive spikes in global heat constant).
As for the rest of your comment-- I'm not sure I see the relevance to this post (which is again about corporate greenwashing and greed + misinformation).
One of the scientists who wrote on climate change says too many conditional statements were left out by journalists and well meaning people in an attempt to make the message short and hard hitting.
Appreciate this side tangent, I hadn't heard of the "buy forest, get credits" offset but of course that exists. Anything that can be an externality will be without actual teeth on regulations. Looking forward to part two.
Part 2 has so much data that I have to cover
Sir Devansh,
Historically I love your AI work and publicly praise it.
This is a butchered rant that sounds like from ten years ago, until you finally got on to SMR nuclear which I support.
Please stick with Artificial Intelligence.
Until nuclear is online unplug from the electric grid, turn off the lights, buy renewable so you can stop hating the necessary fossil fuel industry and the world around it
Disgustedly yours, MB
PS it’s as though the crippling chocolate milk addiction got the best of you on this one. Hope you regain your health soon.
3 things--
1. Thsi is AI. I can't do AI research if the world burns and there is large scale unrest because of climate death. If you disagree with the data, tell me where you disagree.
2. Noone argues that FFC isn't needed. The hate is on the forced dependency that is created, and the systematic destruction of green alternatives/science. That's also why I specifically called out the amount given for Fossil Fuel expansion. And FYI anto Nuclear lobbying is one of the strongest wings in the FFC. That fearmongering we don't have nuclear energy large scale to begin with.
3. I will write articles that I think are most valuable topics that I can talk about. If that bothers you, either ignore them, or support the many other fantastic AI writers in the world. I recommend many on this newsletter so you will not have any difficulty finding them.
Again if you dislike my treatment of facts, which facts I chsoe, or my analysis of the facts, you're free to share that and I will always consider that.
Sir Devansh,
I take “some” issue with much of what was said, far too much to respond to in one sitting.
2. Noone must know that fossil fuel generation (or hydro generation) is essential because of the “way” rotational mass generation stabilizes the grid where renewable alone, and even with batteries, cannot.
Grid design 203.
Furthermore “facts” are often nothing more than easily accessible information or popular opinion. A great number of facts here were opinion refuted by energy engineers on other Substacks where the relative merit of FFC and hydro and renewable and batteries are a main focused and discussed by energy experts who have designed and constructed all of the above.
Cheers and I hope you and I feel friendly again soon.
Wishing you the very best, MB
You haven't actually addressed any of my points.
My article is not that Fossil Fuels are unneccessary. It's that the industry is pretending that they're working on fixing the issues, while investing in things to make everything worse. AND that they know they're doing this (as broken down extensively in the comms reports).
There is a Huge difference in what you're claimign I'm saying and what I'm saying.
**My opinion:**
Until most renewable energy is recognized as a supplemental “side dish” to the main course—rotating generation—well-intentioned renewable power communities will likely continue to demonize fossil fuels (even though they should collaborate). This is especially important because rotating generation remains essential for maintaining the grid’s base load and stabilizing frequency.
In my career, this is the third round of solar and wind subsidies, and the third time the programs have declined for both engineering and financial reasons. That said, new iterations do improve the sustainability and the return on investment (ROI) of green investments.
Please follow the link below to a Substack author’s opinion.
https://substack.com/@jamiehmiller/note/c-293982431?r=1o9dqq&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Renewables are still to unstable to be the primary sourtce of energy everywhere. That much is well understood (hence why so much research and calls for more battery investments and transmission to make things more efficient). And until nuclear is built out more aggressively fossil fuels are going to have to be the main base. Noone is denying either of those.
The problem is 3 fold--
1. Lobbying and misinformation campaigns actively push down the alternative investments in RnD (see the relatively low percentage of investments in that than fossil expansions).
2. Resources are instead being poured into fossil fuel expansions, which increases dependency on them instead of building more sustainable paths forward.
3. All compounded by very short term timelines.
For an alternatoive look at how China has built out an insanely powerful grid with reniewables and nuclear. Electrucity has been one of the core drivers for their AI boom as well (their grid has more energy, greener energy, and cheaper energy all at once). We're starting to more success in other parts of the world as well. The piint isn't to remove fossil fuels tomorrow, it's to handle 40-70% of the energy needs in the next 5 years until we can build out a prper solution. Because the alternative is the status quo, which is not acceptab;e
https://www.weforum.org/stories/energy-transition/china-adding-more-renewables-to-grid/
Devansh,
I agree wholeheartedly with your comprehensive description of the lobbyists and revolving doors between government and enterprise.
My opinion is that both parties suffer from this disrespect and abuse of the trust and power provided by the citizens.
Also, it is my opinion that most members of all political groups spend more time collaborating on how to split deals (that enrich their constituents and/or themselves) than on the public interest they promised to represent while getting elected (nothing new here unfortunately).
Fact: I’ve been accused of being a cultist, it is true, I’m with this group of chocolate milk habit supporters or mitigators.
Sincerely, MB
Devansh,
A point that is key and from which a multitude of positions pivot (while polarizing communities) is climate change.
Picking different start / end dates and adjusting the filters and bench mark criteria for comparison can completely change the outcome: are we warming, cooling, is weather change per geographic area meaningful or incidental to the norm over time, not significant or significant depending on whose beach it is.
Personally I’m interested in learning from the current top three groups who claim climate science expertise, this while each group usually says the others are wrong. It will probably be an apple to orange to banana comparison. The tide is shifting away from a belief in climate change (while relaxing constraints- right or wrong).
Of course fossil fuels were against the competition of nuclear power, most everyone else was afraid of nuclear including our environmental friends until we needed the refurbished nuclear islands of off grid stand alone power for data centers. Is it true that the Sierra Club got on the nuclear train and green washed it into acceptance? My nuclear friends say there is no nuclear waste problem, only a growing stockpile of partially used rods for future consumption (is this true or just marketing?), I don’t know.
People seem to use more, not less electricity. Stop using electricity and let fossil fuel go bankrupt.
In a more perfect world we would have unlimited no impact hydropower spinning massive rotors generating stable frequency electricity as the base load supplier to the electric grid to be augmented with weather interruptible renewable (supplemented with toxic heavy and light metal batteries). This until the next better energy iteration comes along in renewable and SMR nuclear. As you have noted of renewable are not environmentally friendly, they just aren’t fossil fuel, after massive quantities of fossil are consumed to create them.
Sincerely yours, MB
"Personally I’m interested in learning from the current top three groups who claim climate science expertise, this while each group usually says the others are wrong."-- who are tehse groups in conflict with each other. Most climate scientists agree with the impact and presence of climate change and the global heatwaves (not to mention that we are seeing massive spikes in global heat constant).
As for the rest of your comment-- I'm not sure I see the relevance to this post (which is again about corporate greenwashing and greed + misinformation).
One of the scientists who wrote on climate change says too many conditional statements were left out by journalists and well meaning people in an attempt to make the message short and hard hitting.
Please follow the link to MIT scientist:
https://substack.com/@jamiehmiller/note/c-296577853?r=1o9dqq&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
What an idiot. I’m done with this woke channel.
hooray! ＼(▽￣＼(￣▽￣)／￣▽)／
I will miss you :(
Agreed. I’m so glad I unsubscribed a couple of weeks ago.