> Of course the very real benefits of this can be abused by the gov and there are some conspiracy types using that to push their own agenda but on the whole I'm largely positive about the smart grid stuff.
There is usually a bigger of truth behind conspiracy theories. In this case there may be no reason to think the initial goal is to control what people are allowed to use energy for, but smart grid initiatives do open the door for that. The same automated systems that allow individuals to reduce their carbon footprint today could be abused to control people later.
> If you notice high energy use while cooking, are you going to start eating more salads instead?
Of course, why wouldn't you? If the assumption isn't that effectively unlimited power is available on demand you adjust use accordingly.
On sunny days with excess power maybe you charge and do laundry. On a stretch of cloudy days you avoid long periods of cooking or using large tools like sellers or air compressors.
Adjusting to our environment rather that chasing convenience is a very reasonable approach to makinh a real dent in reducing our environmental impact.
>> Ultimately the biggest wins are when big appliances and heating/cooling respond to self-production
I think the parent post is pointing out that just measuring usage has limited value. The real value is when you are generating your own alternative.
Then simple changes, that you barely notice, can have z big impact.
Some are obvious, hot water, laundry, dishwasher, pool pump, etc.
Between things like cooking can come into play. Lots of dishes can be prepared in advance, and consumed later. An air-fryer uses less electricity than my oven (and despite the name functions in the same way as an oven).
In Australia there is more and more a network utilisation factor (not sure what the exact name is). In essence this is peak demand in a billing cycle does define the cost for the entire billing cycle. So if I have everything on at the same time I will draw lots of kWh, this will give me a night $/kW that I have to pay for my entire consumption.
So there is merit in keeping peak consumption low to not pay high just because of a single spike.
Never having dishwasher, washing machine and dryer on at the same time is a good starting point.
The biggest benefit by far in my opinion is having the opportunity to learn how to listen to one's body again. Most of us aren't very good at recognizing the signals our bodies are sending us, from low blood sugar to adrenaline. Real-time monitors can really help people listen what those more subtle feelings might mean.
If civilization collapsed, it seems reasonable that anyone predicting it wasn't wouldn't be remembered. Anyone left standing after a collapse would have bigger things to worry about, and the medium in which predictions where published could very likely be lost in the collapse.
If someone were of the honest opinion that broad scale collapse was imminent I can only expect they would also not expect fame afterwards. Anyone sharing this opinion disingenuous is more likely to be sharing it for gain before the collapse that may never come, via book sales or speaking engagements for example.
> The response is to the authors conclusions, which are wrong.
How have you come to the conclusion that the author's conclusions are wrong?
Many in this thread have rightly pointed out that the author is speaking of the future which can't be know with certainty. Are you telling issue with the level of certainty the author seems to have, or do you fished with the argument of impending doom?
"appears to have 2%" is doing a lot of work he. If the earlier comments are accurate, the government stats are based on Google Analytics data that is specifically blocked or obscured by Firefox.
That 2% kind be breached, but the data doesn't accurately represent usage if Firefix is blocking GA in any meaningful numbers.
What's your proposal? Because taking an approach that isn't data driven means it needs to be a replacement, and you need to convince people that it's worth the risk of nepotism and bias.
For starters, how about not using a proprietary service from one of the biggest tech oligopolies which has strong economic incentives to misuse any data that passes through it? If government needs accurate tracking numbers to base its decisions on, it should roll its own tracking for those numbers.
My proposal was simply that data-driven decisions should be made based on accurate data.
Nepotism and bias aren't the alternative here. If you require that decisions are driven by data and you don't have access to accurate data, you should default to doing nothing. If anything, nepotism and bias sneak in when decisions are made despite the fact that no accurate data is avaliable.
so govt should spend tax payer money to support a browser by the numbers no one uses? for "virtue" ? going to have a hard time convincing people of that one
> You say groupthink bubble, I say place where I don't have to brace as much for racist or sexist views being expressed.
There is a real risk that avoiding topics or people one finds offensive can make a person less resilient. Its a totally reasonable response to the internet where you have the opposite problem of being exposed to more than you otherwise would have, but creating too tight of a bubble can have downsides.
I assume it's better these days, but Mastodon avoided adding proper search for years because the core devs knew there was plenty of questionable content or there and making it discoverable would put many hosts at legal risk.
I'll see if I can find the links, it's been a while since I last saw them, but there was a very active GitHub issue on the main Mastodon repo back in 2017 or 2018 related to search. It came down to concerns over content that is considered acceptable in some cultures and child pornography in others.
Another example of why the EPA and similar regulatory agencies shouldn't be trusted blindly.
The idea that the EPA would quietly agree to this is completely ridiculous. Dupont literally poisoned the water, denied and hid it, spun off a new company to shield itself from liability when finally caught, and the EPA was going to let them import 4m pounds of PFASs to the exact same area Dupont already poisoned. Even better the EPA only puts a pause on it after the agreement is discovered and citizens raise alarms.
Years out from an expected production run, I would be surprised to see any binding agreement. A letter of intent to buy is plenty for the chip manufacturer to be able to shop that around for funding if needed.
In the past, some semiconductor manufacturers themselves were happy to finance part of the cost of the run if you had a letter of intent, also. It used to frequently be a 50/50 split - half upfront, half after you have the money your customer(s) promised.
There is usually a bigger of truth behind conspiracy theories. In this case there may be no reason to think the initial goal is to control what people are allowed to use energy for, but smart grid initiatives do open the door for that. The same automated systems that allow individuals to reduce their carbon footprint today could be abused to control people later.