If you're trying to understand/explain what cheap wind/solar is like, I propose this analogy: Imagine if humans had never discovered rice, wheat, potatoes, or other starches, and were just developing them now. What effect would this have on farming, eating, society?
A huge effect, to the benefit of society. It would be a new staple crop that at first promised to deliver low-cost calories to society and then later could become the basis of most diets around the world. First, the nutritional value of the plant would be tested in labs.
Later, some farmers would start growing it and figuring out ways to grow it cheaper and faster. These grains/potatoes would start to show up in meals, with the predictable backlash against all new things. Headlines appear: "New plants cheaper than traditional foods"
Adoption would grow rapidly, though the transition would be challenging. Nutritionists would warn that 100% potato/rice/wheat diets are not healthy. Chefs worry publicly about how to use the new ingredients in traditional recipes, as new ways to cook are slowly discovered.
People would look at the low cost of these carbs and the rapid growth in adoption and extrapolate, saying "Pretty soon, these new carbo foods will completely take over." But they wouldn't - we would still grow and eat fruits, vegetables, meat, and dairy bc of dietary needs.
Eventually, rice/wheat/potatoes really would form the basis of the global diet, which would be a great thing - no longer restricted to meat/dairy/fruit/veg, we can feed more people and grow food in areas that were not productive earlier. It would look like our real world.
All of this is to say: 1. Cost-effective new technologies can be a huge benefit. 2. Transition is complicated, takes times, and is uncertain. 3. In complex systems, new technologies tend to shift the equilibrium (sometimes a lot), but don't usually "take over".
I like this analogy because people can understand the end state of a new technology better if you say "Imagine that we didn't have [this currently common thing], then we got it." rather than "Imagine if we had [this non-existent thing]."
And, yes, I've talked before about electricity technologies as food types, and analogy I like, but I didn't talk about it from a social perspective, just from a nutritional perspective:
In which @BrianTarrojaPhD and I look at the value of controlled charging or vehicle-to-grid in a different way: How much less energy storage would you need and what is that worth?
Brian gave a good summary of the work overall in this thread (below), but I want to focus on just one part (where I think we did a clever thing): How should we estimate the value of smart charging or V2G?
To do this, people mostly look at current or future prices/costs of electricity/services to calculate the value of smart charging/V2G. They mostly find that it isn't worth much today (fair enough).
Ex: here's Elon downplaying the value of V2G: utilitydive.com/news/tesla-unv…
That is: it doesn't seem like we're seriously thinking about how to get the vaccination rate up and we ought to be trying out low-cost experiments like this to see what works.
Currently reviewing a paper for a French-language journal and I just learned that the French call a "pie chart" a "camembert". Now I want to know what pie charts are called in other languages so we can make a delicious chart of the results.
I made a chart of the responses so far. I can edit this, so corrections or additions are welcome.
Pie charts are generally bad, but I think a pie chart of names for pie charts is one good use. Here is another:
New technologies like solar + batteries are getting cheaper. And certainly lower cost drives greater adoption. But does adoption go up gradually or are there "tipping points" where new tech is suddenly preferred? We wanted to dig into this question with a microgrid case study.
This was all driven by some results in a previous microgrid paper, where a student noticed in sensitivity analysis that solar price declines didn't much affect how much solar to put in your microgrid until, suddenly, the model said to greatly increase solar. What's up with that?
Joining the professional class today basically requires that you continually make amazing close friends and then leave them forever (or they leave you). You have to do it again and again and it sucks every time.
Why don't we ever talk about this? It seems to be the #1 downside.
This is obviously a real "first world problem" type of complaint and I imagine most people who manage to get into the highly-educated professional group are happy with their choices (I am), but the inability to hold onto the amazing people that have changed your life is hard.
I've *only* lived in 6 places in my life, but can think of ten different really great friends I've made - friends that would be life-long super-close friends if we lived in the same place. But I left them for college or a job (or they left for one of these reasons).
If you are looking for a solid semi-academic read on how governments behave in a crisis, Essence of Decision has a lot to say about today's situation. It is about US and USSR actions in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I'll describe a few lessons below. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence_o…
The book shows that many of the actions taken by either side in the Cuban Missile Crisis (CMC) weren't really rational and attempts to explain them through other means: organizational behavior or political negotiation. This is because organizations don't "think" rationally.
A rational model of decision uses a "logic of consequences:" relating actions to outcomes and choosing actions that have the best outcomes. Organizations don't work like that - they have a "logic of appropriateness", responding to each situation in a way that seems "by the book".