False equivalences in "technology adoption" arguments

Evangelists for EVs and Solar and Wind renewable energy often present the issue as if it is only a matter of changing our mindsets. That we only need to "think differently" and adoption rate of Solar and EV's will somehow mirror that of smartphones, the TV or the Internet.

But these are false equivalences and many of the examples cited are not at all similar to the issues around new technology adoption of EVs and Solar renewable energy generation.

Let's consider some of those.

Horse carriages were replaced by cars because cars were a much superior alternative for getting from point A to B. A horse has 1 horsepower. Model T had an engine that had 20 hp. And when you were not using the car, it just sat there and you did not need to feed it or clean up manure. Horses and carriages were replaced by a vastly superior transportation alternative.

Moving on to TV which either "replaced" radio or simply "came into being" on its own because most households did not give up their radio when they bought a TV. If you ask 100 people which they would rather have as their in home entertainment and can only choose one, how many do you think would choose radio? So TV was a completely new experience that never existed before and it was affordable very soon to an average household and therefore its adoption rate was very fast. Having a TV in the household significantly changed how people lived their lives and most people felt it was for the better.

How about smartphones? Could you listen to your music or watch YouTube videos or download an app to your original Nokia or Motorola cell phone? The smartphone experience is vastly superior to that of the simple cellphone and your old telephone landline. Of course it would have a steep adoption curve because there are lots of reasons to have a smartphone. It was a compelling new technology unlike anything else before it and spread very fast because of it.

None of that is true with using Solar energy or driving an EV. A Solar produced electron is exactly the same as the one generated from coal. You cannot tell them apart and they can both power a toaster exactly the same way. And driving an EV still only gets you from point A to B and it is not more comfortable, safer or cheaper. The only "benefit" that it gives you today is the sense of superiority you have over others who don't drive an EV. Most of whom don't because they can't afford one.

So while I would very much like Solar and Wind to account for 50% of our electricity by 2025, it is something that simply cannot happen in practical terms. We should stop talking about it as if it is just around the corner and a simple matter of "changing our mindset". Because it is not.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Do we really "deserve to be happy"?

Happiness is not an evolutionary prerequisite. Nothing in the process of evolution selects for happiness (or lack thereof). Evolution cares about survival of the species and no advantages are conferred upon happy as opposed to less so individuals. The "happiness industry" which convinces people that they "deserve to be happy" and in fact makes them miserable because they are not as happy as they "deserve to be", is a recent phenomenon. When cave men brought home the antelope and everybody ate it around the fire, there was no cave man equivalent of Dr. Phil walking around trying to asses the degree of happiness of the group. In the Middle Ages, happiness was defined as not having the plague. It is only in recent times that the "entitlement of happiness" came about and as more of the basic needs were no longer an acute issue, mankind went searching for the next thing that will make them miserable. Total bliss or complete happiness is not a default
Read more

"Sex Addiction" - give me a break ...

I am getting a little bit tired of the whole "sex addiction" racket out there. Sex is not an addiction any more than skating backwards is. It may feel good to have air blowing up your behind (or to have sex) but that does not an addiction make. And if you feel you are addicted, just stop skating backwards! The problem is that calling it an "addiction" trivializes addictions which are real and substantive. The operative word being "substantive" meaning there is a substance involved (although this may not be the correct usage of the term substantive). With real addictions be it alcohol, drugs, nicotine or prescription drugs, there is always a substance at work which makes us feel a certain way ("good" or at least "better" than without it). From that emerges an addiction to that "feel good effect" and in that sense, yes, food can be an addiction also but sex cannot. Of course sex feels good, it is supposed to and without it feeli
Read more

Things we can do by ourselves, and things that we can't

Making a list (and not checking it twice) of things one can do by oneself and those which one can only do with somebody else. Please feel to contribute. Things one can do by oneself - read, run, swim, meditate, eat, hike, chop wood, ski, drink, dance, sleep, play chess, cook, sing, practice any number of sports, feel guilt (as opposed to shame). Things that can be done only with participation of at least one other person - hug, kiss, have a conversation, get or give a massage, shake hands, play any number of sports, entertain somebody else with one's dance, singingor writing, feel shame (as opposed to guilt).
Read more