Captain Obvious

A recent article on customer attitudes toward climate change and what energy companies should do about it is really telling.  To no one’s surprise, customers may want something to happen, but are less than willing to pay to make it happen:

 “To combat climate change, 57 percent of Americans are willing to pay a $1 monthly fee; 23 percent are willing to pay a monthly fee of $40.  Party identification and acceptance of climate change are the main determining factors of whether or not people are willing to pay, with Democrats being consistently more inclined to pay a fee.”

You can read all the details here.

But, the obvious missing data is whether even $40 per person will make much of a dent in the climate change forecast.  I was watching the news this morning where an astrophysicist was talking about how some things might change over the next 100,000 years.  No offense, but I simply do not care nor should anyone else for that matter …

I have enough to worry about that is in the here and now.

I have to admit, I never expected to read this in the Washington Post news-feed.  I started my career designing nuclear power plants for military submarines under Admiral Rickover in his Nuclear Navy.   I lived through the period where nuclear promised power “too cheap to meter,” and then watched the Three Mile Island incident virtually eliminate that concept from consideration.

Now, we have the strange confluence of politics and innovative thinking, there may be an answer here. Read the article in the Washington Post. 

As you read the article you will see that this is not going to be a slam dunk.  But, then again, Bill Gates already tackles things on this scale.  Because I live here in

Georgia, we are living through the only new nuclear power plant on the horizon … we will see.  It remains far from a slam dunk.

Yet, few of us would dismiss the intrinsic beauty of nuclear in the fuel portfolio as an energy source.  Unfortunately, today we need rapidly ramping capacity, not energy … we have plenty of low cost energy.

 

Well, we knew it was only a matter of time.  Energy experts predicted it would happen and it now has on a grand scale.  Market players are claiming their products were made with renewable energy.

Watch the Super Bowl ad from Budweiser.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I think this is all good … at least to a point.  But, it rarely tells the whole story and we should want to hear that whole story.

I bought a Tesla and I love it.  It came with a temporary license plate claiming it was zero emissions … which it is not.  It may be zero local emissions, but depending upon when I charge it the emissions may be increasing from coal plants for all I know.

And, the real question is have we truly decreased emissions in the entire production string from raw materials to and through the ultimate disposal of our products.  Plastics are now a real hot button for environmentalists and they should be for us as well.

The answer is blowing in the wind, but that is the problem.  We are still not sure what all this really means.  Has anyone really calculated what it costs to ramp fossil fuel capacity up and down to accommodate the wind?  No, because ramping is not in the hourly market, it is in the balancing market and prices there tend to be contractual not based upon kWh.  Hmmm.

Again, I am not lobbying against wind, or solar for that matter.  I am encouraged that retailers now see their energy use as an element of their brand strategy.  Personally I would rather they also included the transportation of their raw materials and distribution into their environmental footprint.  In the case of Budweiser, perhaps they should include the environmental footprint of the Clydesdales as well.

They are also adding to what is blowing in the wind.

Just when you think some things are fully known, someone moves the cheese.  In this case, it is Mother Earth who seems to be on a tear to relocate the magnetic North Pole from Canada to Siberia.  Compared to tectonic plate movements of a few inches a year, this is NASCAR… and speeding up.

You can google magnetic north pole movement and have yourself a very good time reading essentially the same story published by just about everyone who wants to grab our attention… except of course the evening news since they can’t blame this on Trump or climate change… at least not yet.

Thank goodness we have satellite navigation.  This would be extremely dangerous for those ancient mariners who relied upon compass headings.

My point this week is on a deeper level.  There is something fundamentally wrong in our current thinking that we must have answers to questions.  We do this in our churches, synagogues, and mosques, and we do this in our politics.  We imply we know answers to questions that are, at least in large part, unknowable.

Please think about the subtlety here.  As soon as we even think we know something, we stop being curious about what could also be true or a deeper or higher level of truth.  We pounce on incomplete discovery and declare it to be more than it is… just that… a discovery… a shred of the truth or deeper meaning.  It is almost NEVER the WHOLE truth.

When we do this we fail the test I would like to suggest we carry for everything this year: humility and curiosity.   We should hunger for learning and be mindful of our powers in this world.  Any time mother nature wants to wipe us out, she can do that in a heartbeat.

An article in USA Today struck me as extremely relevant to our journey toward a sustainable and efficient world.  I don’t think there is a single professional I know that would disagree with that goal … the only disagreement would be how we pay for it.

Getting anything changed requires the art of negotiation and navigation of complex politics.  That requires winning the votes to get things done.  And, if any recent voting comes to mind, I am sure you will agree with me that perceptions are seldom based upon solid facts.  One of my recent blogs pointed out that even the assumption that the world is round has its critics.

So, this article on how people think of life’s issues seems relevant.

How can it be that a world dominated by the internet and with information as freely available as it is that we can be this misinformed?  Could it be that we have a world view and filter what we see and hear to support that point of view?

Critical thinking seems to get a bad rap when it points out how silly things we hold dear really are once you really look at them.  Some of my religious progressive friends like to taunt others with the seasonal assumption that a star literally stopped in its progression in the heavens to point to the birth of Jesus.

Sorry if I offended any of you … remember, I couched that as a progressive friend of mine.  That would seem safe, right?  What if I told you that I believed the story of a star or even a planet if you prefer stopped in its path?

See the pattern?  Our son’s favorite play is Wicked.  My favorite part of this is the soliloquy by the Wizard in the song Wonderful where he states: “Where I come from, we believe all sorts of things that aren’t true. We call it history. A man’s called a traitor or liberator. A rich man’s a thief or philanthropist.  Is one a crusader or ruthless invader? It’s all in which label is able to persist.  There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities, so we act as though they don’t exist.”