I think there's a high risk that what Putin is doing by threatening Ukraine will backfire on him. Short thread.
1. Putin bet that NATO wouldn't come together. But Biden has done a remarkable job pulling the alliance back together. 1/5
2. Putin believes he has a gas weapon against Europe, but his threats - let alone an invasion - will only accelerate Europe finding alternatives to Russian gas.
2/5
3. If Putin backs down now (the best for everyone) he loses. He's strengthened NATO and Biden. He's probably accelerated Europe finding alternatives to Russian gas.
3/5
4. If Putin invades, that's horrific for the people of Ukraine. It also hurts Putin even more than if he backs down. An invasion will mean sanctions on Russia. It'll regalvanize NATO. And it will even more likely create urgency to get off of Russian gas.
4/5
Putin may very well invade soon. That's a real tragedy if he does. But no matter what he does, I don't see how he comes out of this stronger. He's playing the only hand he knows. In the short term violence is effective. In the long term he's harming himself.
5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Of all the ecological impacts of climate change, the one that scares me the most is the loss of coral reefs. New research suggests this could happen much earlier than we thought (at 1.5C of warming, or ~20 years from now, rather than at 2C of warming). phys.org/news/2022-02-c… /1
Coral reef systems are the "rainforests of the sea", hosting an estimated 25% of the biodiversity in the oceans. They also provide the protein (fish) that roughly 500 million people depend on. Theyn protect coastal areas from storms and erosion. And they're beautiful. 2/
Previously we were thought that corals would be almost wiped out by 2C of warming. This new research uses higher resolution modeling to find that even at 1.5C of warming, most reefs would be exposed to heat-driven bleaching events too often to recover. phys.org/news/2022-02-c… 3/
Ketan is correct here. For all the optimism in the slides I shared yesterday, we are not moving at the speed required to stay below 1.5C of warming. Staying below 2C of warming is still doable, but requires concerted action. I would place our current path as 2-2.5C. 1/n
Even net zero by 2050 looks daunting (though within our power to achieve). If I were to look at our technical & policy progress, I see us being able to achieve something close to SSP 4-3.4: Cutting emissions in half by 2050, and to zero by 2080. Worst case- IMHO is SSP2-4.5. 3/n
For context, the cost of power from a gas or coal plant (in normal times) is around 5-6 cents / kwh. 2/n
As I've written extensively, we're in path to eventually have 1 cent solar, and perhaps 2 cent wind, across large swaths of the world. rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/sol… 3/n
I'm pleased to announce that I've taken a new role, as Chief Futurist and Partner at @PrimeMoversLab.
Prime Movers Lab has the mission to fund breakthrough innovation that improves the lives of billions. primemoverslab.com 1/
I'll remain heavily focused on climate, energy, and transportation, but also spend more of my time taking a broad look at the key technology trends in the world today, how they'll impact humanity, and how to better outcomes for everyone. 2/
I'll also continue to speak and write publicly about these topics. In fact, I hope to write much more. 3/
Thread: Joe Manchin is disturbed by the climate provisions in the budget bill that would phase out fossil fuels. He's wrong to be disturbed. Nevertheless, Dems should try to win him over by allowing coal and gas powerplants, IF they're fitted with CCS, to participate in a CES 1/N
Why would I say this? 1. Manchin's support is absolutely required in order to pass a Clean Electricity Standard, or to pass any reconciliation bill at all.
2. Coal is already increasingly uncompetitive. Adding CCS will make it even more expensive. Coal is dead, either way. 2/N
3. Natural gas + CCS, on the other hand, may actually work. And it may be a useful tool for providing seasonal and multi-day generation to complement renewables and hourly storage. 3/N
Today's a big day for long-duration (12 hour+) energy storage. ESS Inc (@ESS_info) - which makes a low-cost, iron-sodium flow battery with unlimited cycle life - is going public via a SPAC merger, with $465m of fresh capital to help them scale. essinc.com/2021/05/07/ess… 1/n
I'm personally very excited. One of the very first angel investments in clean energy I made was to ESS, at the time a tiny company in Oregon, who had technology that showed promise to bring the cost of 12 hour storage down to pennies per kwh. 2/n
Based on what they showed me in 2015, I believed that ESS could make grid energy storage cheap enough to solve the day/night cycle - that some combination of solar, wind, and ESS's flow batteries would be cheaper than coal or gas almost everywhere. 3/n