GRA wrote:Assuming that they are willing to pay attention to what I gather is an anti-AGCC source, do you think that they will decide that the Energiewende was a stupid idea and go back to what they were doing before, or that it's a good idea they wish to continue, but that they want to be smarter about how they go about it?
Regardless of what you think of this source, they are reporting the findings of Germany's top federal auditors. The alarmist media is unwilling to report on this fact, thus continuing their deceptive campaign about Energiewende.
The German people have been deceived for decades and they need to learn the following truths (in case they are not already obvious already):
1) Rather than reducing their electricity prices, Energiewende is increasing them massively, both through taxation and subsidies and through higher rates.
2) Installing windmills in the North Sea does the exact opposite of what it was puported to do: Instead of providing cheap, reliable electricity while reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, these installations provide expensive, unreliable electricity while increasing the consumption of fossil fuels.
3) Leveling the forests in Germany to erect windmills is bad for the environment, not good for the environment.
4) While the USA is reducing emissions rapidly, Germany is holding their emissions virtually flat.
5) The EU as a whole is increasing emissions by roughly the same amount as the US has been reducing them and that the EU is growing their emissons about 1/3 as fast as China:
Perhaps the best thing to tell them is that all their virtue signalling is actually bad for the environment. If they want to improve the environment on this planet, they should only make the changes that REDUCE environmental damage, not those that increase it.
Reg, the fact that you or I may think they are doing the wrong thing in one way or another (like my opinion that they should have got rid of coal before the nukes in order to reduce emissions) is beside the point; they believe they are doing the right thing in the right way, and since neither you or I hold German citizenship, live or can vote there, our opinions carry little weight. They have made the decisions they've made for what they believe are the right reasons. I ask again, do you believe that if they were presented with the information you cite above, they will decide that the Energiewende was a stupid idea and go back to what they were doing before, or that it's a good idea they wish to continue, but that they want to be smarter about how they go about it?
Similarly, California is going for 100% zero carbon (not 100% renewables) by 2045. Whether or not you think this is a good idea, the public here supports it, and since you aren't paying higher taxes and electric bills here to bring that about but we are, your opinion is irrelevant until you can convince people here that your values are right and theirs are wrong. There may come a time when we say, okay, this is too expensive, let's slow things down or change the goal, but so far that's not the case, and given that we're actually ahead of schedule on our VRE % goals and costs have been dropping continuously, that seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.
GRA wrote:No, I don't, Reg. If I'm going to pitch the advantages of BEVs to a bunch of oil roughnecks who drive big, powerful dually diesel pickups with Nascar and American flag decals on them, which message is the one they're most likely to listen to and be persuaded by: that everything they are doing is bad for the environment and the country, they should be ashamed of themselves, and they all should be driving iMiEVs?
It's probably best if you don't tell them that you hate the USA.
Huh? Where did you drag that up from? And you didn't answer my question.
GRA wrote:Or, that EVs will allow us to give OPEC the finger, we won't have to send troops to fight for oil, that we lead the world in this tech, and anyone who thinks they have a fast car can meet me in the parking lot and drag race the Tesla Model S/X P100D and Workhorse W-15 I've brought with me?
When did you purchase your Tesla Model S, X, and Workhorse W-15? Or are you still driving a gasoline-powered 4WD CUV?
Obviously, 'I' referred to someone doing this professionally as a lecture/demo tour, as I'm sure you were aware. Why pretend to be obtuse, when you obviously aren't?
GRA wrote:To a group of overbooked soccer moms, I'm going to emphasize the convenience/time savings of at-home charging, the reduced noise and air pollution, and energy/national security issues (what mom wants her kids to have to fight for access to Mideast oil?).
While I agree that is an excellent message supporting BEVs, don't you think that is a bit off-topic in this thread you created pushing 100% renewable energy on the electricity grid?
Just giving examples of how you alter the emphasis of the message for the audience, while presenting the same info. My personal approach when presenting a product/tech is to list all the possible advantages (and disadvantages) and let the audience decide which ones they care about and which they don't or chose to ignore. I may alter the sequence in which I present those advantages, depending on the audience's demographics.
GRA wrote:To a group of CPAs I'm going to emphasize life cycle costs. And so on.
Interesting. So you will tell those CPAs what you come here and tell us frequently: That EVs are too expensive for the public, but that H2 FCVs are a great thing to spend money on?
Reg, since you love to troll through my past posts, please feel free to to provide a post from me where I've claimed that FCEVs make any economic sense (without large subsidies) at this time? I've never said any such thing, and you know it. And speaking of OT. . .
GRA wrote:That is the "Yes, But" message, as opposed to the "No" message that the survey says the public isn't willing to listen to.
Again, there is no evidence given in the survey referenced that the public is unwilling to listen to any particular message. Keep imagining that the public is not willing to listen, but know that they cannot listen to the message that is never given
I'm happy to give the public as much info as they can handle, but if they simply stop listening because what I'm telling them conflicts with one or more of their most strongly held opinions, the message will never get across. I mean, If I go into a church and tell everyone there that there is no god and now here's some other information, are most of them going to pay attention to what I say from that point on?