Energy transition optimist │ Director, European Programmes at Regulatory Assistance Project │ Research Associate at Oxford and Cambridge Universities │ LinkedIn Top Voice │ FEI │ FRSA
Anti-electricity cartoon from 1889. No matter how good an idea comes along, there will always be somebody opposed. Today it is renewable energy, electric vehicles and heat pumps. Good news is that innovation often proves the tech doubters wrong.
In 1889, the ultimate losing side focused on doomsday propaganda. Which side is focusing on doomsday propaganda (fear porn) today? Certainly not the side focused on the physics of energy density.
LOL you think the doubters are "tech doubters". Very funny. Nobody doubts that the tech works. We don't think it is mature enough, we don't think that the process of forcing people to use a tech that is not ready is smart or fair to those that get stuck with immature tech. Free markets should manage the rollout, NOT governments choosing winners and losers. That is the stuff of socialist societies not free markets.
'innovation often proves the tech doubters wrong' - unles the tech doubters are referencing laws of nature that cant be violated.
All change comes with resistance from the status quo, this time the resistance is just better funded because the status quo means hundreds of billions in profits for a select few.
I agree! I write against the anti-EV narrative, paid for by big oil, at EVinfo.net
Great cartoon ! Problem for me is not new tech , but the difficulty in finding facts/truth about it - we live in a world of spin . Business needs (£) seem to dominate , a sad indicator and cause of my doubts . When electricity was introduced there was the fight between AC and DC systems and the use for execution starting 1890 didn’t help .
The key here is ‘often’ I would say sometimes. Innovation is moraly neutral, many things that have been celebrated as a technological success turned out to have negative consequences later on - https://innovationmetrics.co No doubt every source of energy production and transportation solution that is possibly replaced by the quoted tech (supported by a profitable and sustainable business model) was doubted and ‘proven’ wrong. Question: - How do you define innovation? Disclaimer: - I am all for the ‘energy transition’, I might just be wrong or missing something important.
Highly recommended reading for all political persuasions: https://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9781645020097?invid=17824804869&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=NMPi&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwvb-zBhCmARIsAAfUI2uWybQi60SMsWxpMW1l-1M9p1eOE6LQfzSo_joNg8Gz-awgVoXZzToaAmZREALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
The cartoon not anti-electricity; it is anti-overhead power lines. These are dangerous, ugly, and unreliable. They are not a good idea. If we can bury gas lines, we can bury power lines. Needed now more than ever.
Product Supply (Chemical Engineering) Distinguished Expert and Bayer Senior Science Fellow
1moI contend that the ready acceptance of technological innovations has been a bigger problem than opposition and skepticism have been. The low burden of proof on the long term impact of innovations and the lack of mitigating measures has resulted in microplastics throughout the environment, ozone layer damage, acid rain, PFAS contaminating most humans, grocery store shelves full of processed foods that cause poor health, a myriad of other environmental and social problems, and of course an atmosphere with 1.5x the pre-industrial CO2 concentration. Has ICE powered personal transportation proven to be a good innovation?