“In addition to such problems with risk perception, it is also a scientific fact, and a shocking one, that neither risk detection nor risk avoidance is in the “thinking” part of the brain. but mostly in the emotional part… The consequences are not trivial: It means that rational thinking has little, very little to do with risk avoidance.” – Nassim Taleb, Fooled by Randomness, page 38)
Fire! Fear.
Overwhelm! Fear.
Drought! Fear.
There is a global shortage of natural gas! Staring blankly.
Are we very good at risk analysis? I mean, big risk?
People, especially energy conversion enthusiasts, love to point to instances in human history where a new technology quickly wiped out an old one. The two pillars of this line of thinking are the move from horses to cars and one of the elements from dirt roads to cell phones.
Neither of these are particularly clever comparisons to energy conversion; both bring upheavals equivalent to phase changes to the way we live. A car can expand a person’s world considerably more than a horse, and mobile phones offer a vast array of potential that is unimaginable compared to landlines.
The energy transition will bring about a modified and possibly less form of pollution and/or habitat destruction, but will not revolutionize public life (evidence points to this). conversely, if the sale of firewood in Germany is any indication).
Besides that, there is a fundamental difference in the way the drivers of all these “transitions” drive them. To be more precise, the big and inevitable transitions are really not presided over at all.
When the automobile revolution began, Henry Ford did not simultaneously introduce the Model T and call for the mass slaughter of horses. Chances are Ford didn’t take the horse’s future into account. He simply created a product that in his imagination would become popular, because he could see how it would revolutionize life.
At the same time, governments did not intervene to promote the demise of horse use. The suggestion itself sounds absurd.
When cell phones became popular, Blackberry fans did not pressure the government to phase out the use of landlines. No one cares what happened to the landline. They are too excited about what their new mobile device can do.
In the business world, we are used to arranging things that we know can be done, but have technical difficulties and things that we know simply cannot be done because they are not. doable, within a certain timeframe or because the physical/regulatory/economic world won’t allow it. It’s not black and white, but a gradient based on experience.
Elon Musk started building electric cars at a time when global automakers said ‘that’s never going to work.’ The industry has found no evidence that lithium ion batteries can be safely packaged in a way to power vehicles. It’s an example of the end of the “can do” spectrum.
Now consider the effects of Musk’s success on the “energy transition” versus the “get rid of everyone” mindset (of the crowd that stillUnbelievably, after watching what happens during the shortage, will soon be boarding jet bound for COP27 where they will dance and chant around the fuel-powered cremation pylons fossil fuel at the same time that half the world’s governments introduced hundreds of billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies to prevent anarchy in the streets (but I digress).
Musk’s success indicates that a potential new engine solution is possible and, in some cases, better. There are many places where an electric vehicle is beneficial, such as in enclosed spaces where emissions are lethal, or for small appliances/devices that only need an hour of use here and there. and high emissions combustion engines (and of course many others like Good.
But Musk’s success doesn’t mean the entire old gasoline/diesel internal combustion engine system can be replaced or completely replaced. Musk’s efforts have created a strong foothold where the process can begin; it doesn’t point to any conclusions being ignored even if he thinks it’s revolutionary and potentially game-changing.
The optimists, however, have decided to draw the foregone conclusion, that this new battery-powered EV technology will replace the internal combustion engine and quickly (a California loon expert named Tony Seba has predicted, in 2016, that by 2025 all vehicles sold will be electric and gas stations will be obsolete by then). The Western government decided to shoot all the horses, in effect; Many countries have drawn up plans to phase out the sale of internal combustion engines within a decade or two.
In the “do something about climate” panic, people wanted to believe, and many people immediately showed up to cheer for new developments, because the alternative was fire/flood. /drought. There’s nothing wrong with it – we need it, and we also need risk takers and early adopters. But fear is not the way to go – the media shouting “fire” in the cinema is not conducive to progress.
There is no guarantee that any new technology will be successful (in fact, in an unstable new environment, there is always the possibility that a new technology will emerge to surpass the “new” technology – for example, with the world’s push towards hydrogen, it is conceivable that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could become more dominant than battery electric vehicles).
So we get to the heart of today’s catastrophic global problem: the difference in consequences between the likelihood that a new technology will succeed and the expectation/requirement that it will success – and the elimination of the old because it is a foregone conclusion that the new will take over.
We have followed the path of the latter, because “science” has told us we must. We have to reduce emissions, we have to reduce fossil fuel consumption, etc. It’s life or death, according to whoever declared a climate emergency, and therefore full support. enough is given after proposals that bring about this desired state.
But what if the expectation is wrong? What are the consequences of a ‘bad bet’? Well, it depends on who is making the bet.
Look at Musk’s electric car success from one angle, that of a bettor on new technology or his stock. If EVs take over and dominate the market, investors will win big. Without EVs or if for any other reason Musk’s company fails, investors will lose money, which is a story told ten billion times in the history of stock exchanges.
But what if the “bettors” at the macro level, governments and policymakers, are wrong? What if they participate in the destruction of the existing energy system under the pretext that the new technology in question will prevail?
Then what happens when governments start panicking, realizing that change isn’t happening fast enough, for them to legislate for EVs without knowing the consequences?
Well, I’ll tell you what happens – we’re all running out of fuel, and it’s happening in many parts of the world (and this will become apparent in 2021, before Putin corrupted).
The policy strategy has been a major failure on at least two fronts, both of which have the potential to significantly reduce life expectancy as we know it.
One front is the simple inability of the manufacturing world to buy the metals and minerals needed to make the switch. Mining experts point out that there are not enough important metals/minerals in the world (in terms of proven deposits); The great green transition International Energy Agency indicates that net zero targets will require four times as much mineral output by 2040 (no vision of how that could happen, just it). “must”), and even CBC chimed in by writing a story about a report stating that the world would need “more than 300 new mines” to achieve what we hoped for, an often unintentional claim that “new mine” is not a new factory or new building; for the development of a new mine means the discovery of a sufficient quantity of economically recoverable metals/minerals (no guarantee that they exist), the construction of said mine is entirely possible under increasing regulatory burdens (no guarantee that any mine can be put into production), and when, where and how produced metals/minerals can be disposed of that we want (environmental regulations will greatly challenge this last point).
That metric alone – the lack of known/recoverable mineral deposits (with certainty) – is enough to make any wise regulator take a step back and say “oh, better is that we shouldn’t try to force anything until this is sorted out.” No one anywhere starts building something huge when they’ve been told loud and clear that building materials are not and won’t be available for decades.
But that’s not the worst of it. The worst thing is the decay of the current energy system, and that factor is a thousand times worse because that energy system keeps people alive and creates things without your vision. we come from human hands.
The consequences of adapting the current system are not yet contemplated, because of blind faith in the new system. But the reality is that, as usual, has the final say on wishes – see the European energy crisis, rapidly increasing coal consumption, hoarding firewood, etc.
The success of the energy transition is entirely dependent on the ability of any new energy technology to grow and evolve to the point of making the old system redundant. The transition will happen when, for cars, the public no longer cares about the old because the new is so much more dominant.
But our rulers seem unable to grasp the magnitude of that surprise. If someone wants to destroy the existing (fossil fuel) system, the new system has to be ready and fully proven, and is what consumers are flocking towards (most of those flocking to). to this system are now attracted by the multitude of subsidies, subsidies and incentives, all new created by the government).
That’s how life works, when substituting something elemental. Not to be confused with consumer willingness to adapt to mobile (or even EV), the comparison to energy transition is meaningless. The “disadvantage” of adapting to cell phones is the cost of leaving behind a fixed line, and what is that cost? Almost zero. The cost of adapting to EVs is significantly more challenging, but doable, and is based on a person’s ability to find the right toll and possibly a rethinking of travel habits (and even that hill is impassable for many).
Developers of new technologies such as automobiles and mobile phones did not immediately acknowledge the global dominance of their products nor attribute its success to someone destroying competition. old trusty paintings. Business decisions are not made that way.
It’s scary to think that the energy transition is being staged by people who don’t understand the difference. Good luck to all sewing.
The energy transition will happen – but it won’t look like what’s being forced on us. We will rethink “environmentalism” in completely different terms. Read about it in “The Last of Fossil Fuel Madness” at Amazon.ca, Indigo.caor Amazon.com. Thanks for the support. And hang there Ukraine! The world is cheering for you.
Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here.
Related
