[Me & X] Energy sector mapping
X : Did you map out the energy sector?
Me : A few years back, from multiple different perspectives with groups specialised in that space. The high priority areas to focus on (for social benefit) were energy supply chain awareness and modelling of the energy grid. The big problem we have is that the grid acts as a single large A/C machine - hence things like mechanical inertia (big metal spinning disks) matter for reasons of stability. Without clear models based upon a decent supply chain awareness then it's difficult for policy makers to make sensible choices.
X : For social benefit?
Me : Yes. If you're looking however to grow the existing market then you'd plough your investment into carbon capture and hydrogen / green fuels. Neither of which will solve the problem or make much economic sense except to investors.
X : You're not a fan of carbon capture?
Me : It depends. I'm a fan of using trees and plankton. Our planetary ecosystem has evolved pretty effective mechanisms for this. So, I tend to like systems that exploit this. Human made versions have a long history of failure.
X : What about small modular reactors?
Me : Micro nuclear is a great idea, if you site them on the location of former nuclear power stations. We don't have the sort of grid we can easily add such power generators anywhere on the network and we do have supply chain issues with them. But overall, fast response batteries, RT decision making, micro nuclear are all worthy candidates to think about - from a social benefit point of view.
X : Does social benefit ever align to market benefit?
Me : Sure, all the time - in fantasy economic novels. Annoyingly, practical reality seems to disagree with them. For example, in 15 different industries then out of 36 high priority investment areas only one aligned to the market.
X : Will crypto fix this?
Me : That depends upon what you mean by 'fix'.
Originally published on LinkedIn.