As a pure wonk, I did not expect to find this pod interesting, but it isn't all about me. It is about making climate action more mainstream than it is.
Scientists are needed everywhere, especially in government, as they try to make decisions about clean energy and stuff they don't understand. It also reminded me how fascinating sustainable product development is. I mean, if you are going to be selfish and materialistic, then figuring out how to do it with the least damage to the planet is a worthwhile goal. I remember there was a pod a while back from a sustainable company (Blue Planet?). Despite Felon47's 3 ring circus, the rest of the world still cares and continues to work on making products more sustainable. These stories may not resonate with technical folks, but they are more likely to resonate with Joe on the street who wants to vote with his money to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
Ah yes, Taylor Krause's "wild journey" from hydrogen policy wonk to reality TV star to "chinesediscobaby.com" and a new career as a "sustainability" life-coach-fashionista-sex kitten podcaster with, oh, I dunno, just a tad of unbridled narcissism as she promotes lines of clothing from her posh living room that she greenwashes as sustainable. I'm thinking the folks back at RMI probably don't crow about their erstwhile connection to the new brand-pumping chinesediscobaby.
But you find her journey & arrival at commercial "sustainability influencer" status to be not just interesting but... relevant & important to explore. I'm confused. What happened to the 2012 TedX David Roberts who knew then and knows now that we were then and still are on track for a 5º to 6ºC 2100 temp increase and absolute societal & ecological catastrophe?
The same Dave Roberts who now promotes renewables & electrification as the remedy for out of control emissions and feedbacks that have already destabilized the Earth System beyond repair. When all evidence is that legacy & fast rising FF emissions, now at 430 ppm, cannot & will not be even slightly reduced by adding anyone's number of solar & wind units to the energy mix. I get it that a climate Cassandra pushing unsavory information soon runs low on subscribers. Everyone needs to make a living. But as one who has held you in high regard, I am disappointed. The last thing we need is people believing that electrification is the answer to a far more complex predicament.
Sorry, didn't see your reply until now. Presently, there are no *cost-effective* and efficient electricity-powered technologies that can match the work done by FFs in sectors requiring heavy lifting & high heat – not at scale anyway. E.g, mining & smelting; steel, cement & glass production, petrochemical cracker plants, cargo shipping, commercial aviation & long haul trucking. Which are 99% done with diesel, bunker fuels, gas & coal. FFs are ~80% of total energy and the power sector remains a steady ~20% of total energy. Globally.
Within the power sector, renewables currently account for ~40% of electricity. The other ~60% is coal & gas generated. Here's how that 40% share of electricity generation from renewables breaks down: (AI search results)
"Hydro: 14.3% Hydropower remains the largest source of low-carbon electricity, but its share has slowly declined as demand has grown faster than hydro generation.
Wind: 8.1% Wind generation grew, but the annual growth rate was the lowest in the last two decades, possibly due to lower wind speeds in some areas, notes the IEA.
Solar: 6.9% Solar generation was the primary source of new electricity generation for the third year in a row in 2024 and was the fastest-growing source of electricity for the 20th consecutive year, according to Ember's Global Electricity Review.
Other renewables: 2.6% This category includes sources like bioenergy, geothermal, and other emerging renewable technologies."
So, wind & solar together are ~15% of electricity and only ~3% of 100% total global energy consumption. This puts a heavy burden of proof on advocates claiming that renewables can replace FFs, many of whom think I'm a shill for the FF industry for saying so.
EVs: Yes, they reduce pollution while operating & yes they are at about 20% of new car & light truck sales. And there about 58M EVs on the road, battery & hybrids combined. But that is out of ~6.2 BILLION cars on the road. So no, EVs are not poised to make a significant difference in the global gas guzzling passenger fleet anytime soon. Never mind that the electricity EVs consume comes mostly from the grid which is ~60% powered by coal & gas plants.
Remember also that just like ships, planes, plastics, medical devices, trains and about everything else we make – EVs, solar panels, wind turbines and the infrastructure supporting them depend entirely on FF energy for the making, maintenance and eventual replacement.
There is more detail to bring, but this is the outline of my homework. I don't expect to get an A on my homework but I do reasonably expect criticism to show *how* what I offer as fact is false or misleading – if that is what is thought.
As a pure wonk, I did not expect to find this pod interesting, but it isn't all about me. It is about making climate action more mainstream than it is.
Scientists are needed everywhere, especially in government, as they try to make decisions about clean energy and stuff they don't understand. It also reminded me how fascinating sustainable product development is. I mean, if you are going to be selfish and materialistic, then figuring out how to do it with the least damage to the planet is a worthwhile goal. I remember there was a pod a while back from a sustainable company (Blue Planet?). Despite Felon47's 3 ring circus, the rest of the world still cares and continues to work on making products more sustainable. These stories may not resonate with technical folks, but they are more likely to resonate with Joe on the street who wants to vote with his money to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
Ah yes, Taylor Krause's "wild journey" from hydrogen policy wonk to reality TV star to "chinesediscobaby.com" and a new career as a "sustainability" life-coach-fashionista-sex kitten podcaster with, oh, I dunno, just a tad of unbridled narcissism as she promotes lines of clothing from her posh living room that she greenwashes as sustainable. I'm thinking the folks back at RMI probably don't crow about their erstwhile connection to the new brand-pumping chinesediscobaby.
But you find her journey & arrival at commercial "sustainability influencer" status to be not just interesting but... relevant & important to explore. I'm confused. What happened to the 2012 TedX David Roberts who knew then and knows now that we were then and still are on track for a 5º to 6ºC 2100 temp increase and absolute societal & ecological catastrophe?
The same Dave Roberts who now promotes renewables & electrification as the remedy for out of control emissions and feedbacks that have already destabilized the Earth System beyond repair. When all evidence is that legacy & fast rising FF emissions, now at 430 ppm, cannot & will not be even slightly reduced by adding anyone's number of solar & wind units to the energy mix. I get it that a climate Cassandra pushing unsavory information soon runs low on subscribers. Everyone needs to make a living. But as one who has held you in high regard, I am disappointed. The last thing we need is people believing that electrification is the answer to a far more complex predicament.
Could you please explain or point me to some short materials about your claim about electrification not being the solution?
Sorry, didn't see your reply until now. Presently, there are no *cost-effective* and efficient electricity-powered technologies that can match the work done by FFs in sectors requiring heavy lifting & high heat – not at scale anyway. E.g, mining & smelting; steel, cement & glass production, petrochemical cracker plants, cargo shipping, commercial aviation & long haul trucking. Which are 99% done with diesel, bunker fuels, gas & coal. FFs are ~80% of total energy and the power sector remains a steady ~20% of total energy. Globally.
Within the power sector, renewables currently account for ~40% of electricity. The other ~60% is coal & gas generated. Here's how that 40% share of electricity generation from renewables breaks down: (AI search results)
"Hydro: 14.3% Hydropower remains the largest source of low-carbon electricity, but its share has slowly declined as demand has grown faster than hydro generation.
Wind: 8.1% Wind generation grew, but the annual growth rate was the lowest in the last two decades, possibly due to lower wind speeds in some areas, notes the IEA.
Solar: 6.9% Solar generation was the primary source of new electricity generation for the third year in a row in 2024 and was the fastest-growing source of electricity for the 20th consecutive year, according to Ember's Global Electricity Review.
Other renewables: 2.6% This category includes sources like bioenergy, geothermal, and other emerging renewable technologies."
So, wind & solar together are ~15% of electricity and only ~3% of 100% total global energy consumption. This puts a heavy burden of proof on advocates claiming that renewables can replace FFs, many of whom think I'm a shill for the FF industry for saying so.
EVs: Yes, they reduce pollution while operating & yes they are at about 20% of new car & light truck sales. And there about 58M EVs on the road, battery & hybrids combined. But that is out of ~6.2 BILLION cars on the road. So no, EVs are not poised to make a significant difference in the global gas guzzling passenger fleet anytime soon. Never mind that the electricity EVs consume comes mostly from the grid which is ~60% powered by coal & gas plants.
Remember also that just like ships, planes, plastics, medical devices, trains and about everything else we make – EVs, solar panels, wind turbines and the infrastructure supporting them depend entirely on FF energy for the making, maintenance and eventual replacement.
There is more detail to bring, but this is the outline of my homework. I don't expect to get an A on my homework but I do reasonably expect criticism to show *how* what I offer as fact is false or misleading – if that is what is thought.