• solo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    This is a very weird article, so I thought of taking a look at the author. Michael Barnard has been writing in the past for Forbes magazine, is the co-founder of a couple of start-ups, and is the Chief Strategist of The Future Is Electric or TFIE Strategy Inc. It looks like:

    TFIE’s mission is to ensure that as much of the trillions spent on climate solutions in the coming decades is spent intelligently, wisely and quickly.

    Michael Barnard spends his time projecting scenarios for decarbonization 40-80 years into the future, and assisting executives, boards and investors to pick wisely today.

    [source: https://tfie.io/]

    I have the impression that he is simply not invested to geothermal. If anyone has got more info, please share.

    • Womble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah the article seems to be “Nuclear and fossil fuels are reliable and list that as an advantage, geothermal is also reliable and lists that as an advantage”, to which: yeah? That is the case. The problem with fossil fuels is that they are an exceptionally good energy source, apart from the fact that they are slowly choking the planet. If they werent so good at providing energy they would be a lot easier to replace.

      • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        The article goes a little further than that. The problem is not just nuclear, fossil, and geothermal listing reliability as an advantage.

        If the article is to be believed, reliable power production is not a significant benefit anymore, given the extent of storage options to store the energy from intermittent wind and solar.

        So the problem is, the geothermal industry is attacking wind and solar energy, using a talking point that is no longer valid - just like the fossil fuel industry is doing.

        And attacks on wind and solar based on false premises are bad.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          If the article is to be believed

          Aye, there’s the rub. Contending that reliability of electricity generation isnt an important fact is wishful thinking at best (and boosterism of something you’re invested in at worst). There is nowhere bigger than an isolated town or so that manages a grid without either reliable generation or power exchanges with another location that does have reliable generation.