It’s very exciting to see the spread of solar and storage across sub Saharan Africa and SE Asia for exactly the reasons you outline: providing cheap, green, reliable power direct to users, so they can have light at night for the first time ever, power for their phones, and refrigeration and a fan. It reminds me of that Hans Rosling talk where he has a pair of sandals, a bike, a car and a plane as props.
Solar is anything but cheap and reliable. Writing that just shows you either don’t understand or are a grifter to the green fad. Convince me I’m wrong.
Entertaining the very idea that we can electrify everything just shows a total misunderstanding of how the real world works. You know, the real world where we use concrete, steel, glass and aluminum, just to name a few.
I see people complaining that it's impractical to electrify farm tractors that help produce the food we all need. I think that's correct but instead of using it to justify more diesel pick ups it justifies fewer diesel pick up so we can reserve the diesel for things that can't be easily replaced. Sorry if I'm misreading your comment but I see a similar argument, can't produce steel without coal so we shouldn't electrify stuff.
I don't have an EV because I'm not ready to buy one but by the time I do they are probably going to be a more logical choice for me.
Electrifying aluminum production already worked out pretty well. It used to cost more than gold. Sufficiently cheap intermittent electricity - which solar and wind often provide - could be used to produce synthetic methane from atmospheric CO2, thereby electrifying anything that specifically requires hydrocarbons without even needing to retool.
I’d love a chat with you over a cup of coffee sometime, unlikely, but it’d be a great conversation. Interestingly I’ve been in residential energy and following climate for over a decade now somehow never seen this graph. While I agree that many in the world should have access to much more energy, you’re too kind to North America, we definitely need to use less energy.
But that’s not why I’m commenting. Scott Galloway’s post seems misleading. Your original graph shows electricity use in kWh, his says energy? What are we talking about? Those aren’t the same thing. I’m guessing Kenyan’s aren’t living all-electric, probably burning something to cook food, using gasoline powered vehicles. I doubt the kWh is the only energy used by a Kenyan, but that’s the vibe I’m get from some of this. Was your original graph all energy converted to kWH or just electricity. This just feels relevant to the perspective here.
Either way the graph is some great perspective, keep up the good work.
It’s very exciting to see the spread of solar and storage across sub Saharan Africa and SE Asia for exactly the reasons you outline: providing cheap, green, reliable power direct to users, so they can have light at night for the first time ever, power for their phones, and refrigeration and a fan. It reminds me of that Hans Rosling talk where he has a pair of sandals, a bike, a car and a plane as props.
Solar is anything but cheap and reliable. Writing that just shows you either don’t understand or are a grifter to the green fad. Convince me I’m wrong.
Good piece, Todd. I have used your refrigerator metric many many times. And I always try to credit you. See:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/05/22/my-old-refrigerator-used-more-electricity-than-33-billion-people/?sh=323a40c677d5
Also, keep in mind a line that is attributed to both Picasso and John Lennon:
Amateurs borrow, professionals steal.
Thanks Robert. I know you do! 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Eye opening if not exactly surprising. I think it helps make a case for more renewable electricity.
Entertaining the very idea that we can electrify everything just shows a total misunderstanding of how the real world works. You know, the real world where we use concrete, steel, glass and aluminum, just to name a few.
I see people complaining that it's impractical to electrify farm tractors that help produce the food we all need. I think that's correct but instead of using it to justify more diesel pick ups it justifies fewer diesel pick up so we can reserve the diesel for things that can't be easily replaced. Sorry if I'm misreading your comment but I see a similar argument, can't produce steel without coal so we shouldn't electrify stuff.
I don't have an EV because I'm not ready to buy one but by the time I do they are probably going to be a more logical choice for me.
Electrifying aluminum production already worked out pretty well. It used to cost more than gold. Sufficiently cheap intermittent electricity - which solar and wind often provide - could be used to produce synthetic methane from atmospheric CO2, thereby electrifying anything that specifically requires hydrocarbons without even needing to retool.
I’d love a chat with you over a cup of coffee sometime, unlikely, but it’d be a great conversation. Interestingly I’ve been in residential energy and following climate for over a decade now somehow never seen this graph. While I agree that many in the world should have access to much more energy, you’re too kind to North America, we definitely need to use less energy.
But that’s not why I’m commenting. Scott Galloway’s post seems misleading. Your original graph shows electricity use in kWh, his says energy? What are we talking about? Those aren’t the same thing. I’m guessing Kenyan’s aren’t living all-electric, probably burning something to cook food, using gasoline powered vehicles. I doubt the kWh is the only energy used by a Kenyan, but that’s the vibe I’m get from some of this. Was your original graph all energy converted to kWH or just electricity. This just feels relevant to the perspective here.
Either way the graph is some great perspective, keep up the good work.