8 Comments

Dude the opening music is amazing. 😁🤣. The kind of thing I play when I'm about to descend on my child with math homework, vegetables for dinner, and instructions to clean up under his bed.

Expand full comment

Folks I only use the SLACK for meetups... Not the Sub! Who the heck is using Substack??

Expand full comment

Energy twitter is dead we need to find a new path! Try out chat here: https://open.substack.com/chat/posts/50e4d28d-63ef-4c9a-92b5-200cd69e5706

Expand full comment

Ps I’m not hate china, I’m let’s go US!

Expand full comment

If china is already half our cost of solar and storage, as a middle school science teacher I have to ask why we aren’t doing a Manhattan Project and using gas to power improving solar and battery through AI for two years until we get the cost down for both 75%? What happened to the innovators of the world?

Expand full comment

Matt Yglesias is not the holy warrior, he is criticizing the holy war.

He often criticizes overzealous environmental groups on the left who push Dem politicians toward extreme policies, like those who say anything less than 100% renewable is not good enough. So I think he’s agreeing with you. He is clowning on the groups and taking your research at face value as a good thing.

Expand full comment

Whether it was his intent or not, his response associated us with the overzealous environmental groups which we are not. If it wasn't his intent I would have expected something more supportive like "finally a group who is not into purity tests and endorse nat gas as backup." Instead of that, he made it seem like Duncan was hiding the nat gas association, mapped the 100% renewables meme/holy war onto the paper, then took a further step and stood up "truly clean", "truly reliable" nuclear/hydro/geothermal as a better solution. At its absolute best it was sloppy and lazy. At its worst, it was cynical and intentional. Either way it was disingenuous.

I do not know Matty's work or if he is a holy warrior, but this response was uncriticial and read to me precisely how a nuclear or nat gas holy warrior would respond. He was only engaging at the memetic level, not the rational one. So what is the difference? I often find that those "criticizing the holy war" just become the memes they reflexively respond to and are in this sense indistinguishable from the holy warriors themselves. I view that as the case here with no comment on Matty's work more broadly.

Expand full comment

I get it, I have read him for a long time and am also a big DERTF fan so I’m just saying what he usually means by this and that you might be surprised to find an ally not an enemy. Also his name isn’t Matty (Matt/Matthew solidarity here)

Expand full comment