We need a better power generation capacity unit than watts (here billions of watts / "GW"). Thread on what a replacement might look like via back-of-the-envelope calculations.

https://twitter.com/NatBullard/status/1494015387154923523

That "21.5GW solar" will produce 21.5GW on sunny mid-days and 25% on average (AZ 30%, VT 15%). Some of that 8.4 GW of gas will run 55% of the time; some will run 13% of the time ("peaker"). The 5.1GW of batteries will discharge perhaps 16% of the time: atb.nrel.gov/electricity/20…

Dear #energytwitter, let's talk about nuclear power, renewables, climate change, advocacy, "doing the math", and whether choosing different units of measure can clarify which disagreements are semantic, which are spurious, and which are substantive. There are renewables advocates who don't see the point of nuclear and vice-versa. I wonder focusing on the most apt units of measure might help. For renewables, not GW but GWh-y. For nuclear, not GWh but gigatons-when. Let me explain ...

Half a century ago, Steve Jobs, Alan Kay, and others imagined reducing computers to portable screens connected by radio to the world's knowledge. Their vision opened up a huge design space. They named the quest, or question, of realizing that dream "tablet computing." For three decades, ambitious technologists imagined, sketched, and prototyped tablets. Year after year they failed, failed, failed. "Tablet" no longer named an inspiring dream. It was the depressing reality of Newton and PalmPilot.

Let's talk about electric vehicle charging stations, money, and consumer psychology through the lens of driver labor per hour of travel. I once drove 15 minutes as my Leaf's battery died to the nearest charging station, then ended up killing two hours to get enough energy for the 30 minute drive home. Call it 4 minutes of my "labor" for 1 minute of driving time, worst case (once a year).