Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

What Happens to Gas Stations When the World Goes Electric? | Emily Grubert | TED #74

Open
zfy68 opened this issue Mar 25, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
TEDTalk technology, entertainment, design talk

Comments

@zfy68
Copy link
Owner

zfy68 commented Mar 25, 2023

https://api.woodpeckerlearning.com/v4/assets/share/FQQE3rB8Uc0/Video/0

@zfy68
Copy link
Owner Author

zfy68 commented Mar 25, 2023

@zfy68 zfy68 self-assigned this Mar 25, 2023
@zfy68 zfy68 added the TEDTalk technology, entertainment, design talk label Mar 25, 2023
@zfy68
Copy link
Owner Author

zfy68 commented Mar 25, 2023

[English] What Happens to Gas Stations When the World Goes Electric_ _ Emily Grubert _ TED [DownSub.com]

Picture this.

You're in your car
and you're getting worried.

You were really, really relying
on that fuel station being open.

Now you're not sure
you're going to make it

to the next one you see on your map.

And this area is notorious
for unreliable stations.

You definitely don't have enough range

to make it to the one
that you know is usually working

or even the one that at least has
decent customer service

on their help line when it's down.

So you slow way down to conserve energy

and sigh when you see a giant hill
coming up on the freeway ahead of you.

The way people are driving,

there is no way you're going to make it
up this hill at a safe highway speed

without killing your energy efficiency.

It's hot out, but you turn off your AC

and remind yourself again
that charging your phone in the car outlet

doesn't actually use that much energy.

"Man," you think to yourself,

"I remember when this
was a problem for EVs.

But when I bought this car,

I just didn't think finding gasoline

was ever going to be
this much of a problem."

(Laughter and applause)

If we succeed at reaching
international climate goals,

the fossil fuel infrastructure systems

that support about 80 percent
of global energy consumption

will mostly, if not entirely,
retire over the next few decades.

The global dominance of fossil fuels

and the global emergency of climate change

means that this retirement
imperative exists everywhere,

whether infrastructure
is relatively old --

like in the US,
where I work on these issues

and where most of my examples come from --

or relatively newer,

as in many countries
with more recent industrialization.

What I'm talking about
is big infrastructure,

like power plants and refineries,

but it's also things
like gas stations and people's cars,

stoves and furnaces.

Fossil fuel infrastructure is a complex
network of high-hazard industries

that need to be able
to continue to operate safely

until the new system
is completely ready to take over,

including during emergencies
complicated by climate change.

Just letting these systems go away
would be deeply disruptive and hazardous.

We'd expect disproportionate harm

to overburdened
and underserved communities

who can't opt out
from skyrocketing prices,

abandoned remediation plans

and declining access to energy services.

This means ongoing fossil expenditures

and a reliance on highly trained workers

in industries that might not
outlast their careers,

with a simultaneous focus
on phasing out these same industries

as quickly as possible
to address climate change

and a host of other
environmental injustices.

This is why we need to plan.

And right now, there's basically
nowhere in the world

where these urgently needed plans
for phasing out the fossil system

while phasing in the clean
energy system exist.

When we talk about climate goals,
the question I like to ask is,

“If we actually believed
we were going to succeed,

what would we need
to be doing right now?”

The time between now and success

is where this gets real
and very difficult.

Sara Hastings-Simon and I
call this the mid-transition.

And even under a best-case scenario,
it will probably last for decades.

During the mid-transition,

the clean energy system
and the fossil energy system

are both too small to fulfill all
of the energy needs we have,

but big enough that they can't really
operate without constraining each other.

Also, the mid-transition overlaps
with the climate transition.

This means we'd expect the systems
we have now to become less functional

as they operate further and further
outside of design parameters.

And it also means we don't entirely know

what the new systems will need
to be able to handle.

Another issue here
is that we'd also expect

that the transitioning system
will just generally work less well

than either the stable starting point
or the stable end point.

As long as both systems
are operating at scale,

we can't optimize for either one's needs.

People are often willing to accept
some level of problem

in order to enable a shared future vision.

But trust in that vision
will be extraordinarily fragile

when it’s required for decades,

while climate impacts
are making everything scarier

and while we're visibly
dismantling infrastructure

that people remember as functional.

As we plan,

keeping a clear and focused
commitment on people first and foremost

and ensuring that these
are community-led projects

will be critical.

One of the nice things about existing
energy infrastructure is it exists.

So you can go to a power plant break room

and chat up people about how long
they expect to keep working

or which bits of the plant site
might need remediation.

This means planning
can be very, very specific

and guided by the expertise of people
that are in these places.

Who needs a job if the power plant closes?

Does everyone in town have safe
temperatures in their homes?

Which gas stations need to stay open
longer than they're profitable

to make sure that everybody
can get to work

while alternative
transportation systems mature?

How much extra funding
do you need for the library

if tax revenues start to decline?

Although good transition plans need
to be deeply community-embedded,

the scale and the impact
of the energy system

demands some level
of centralized coordination.

One strategy here is to set deadlines
for fossil asset retirements.

Ample notice, say a decade,

gives communities enough time
to create and implement plans,

and a legislated end date
gives people enough confidence

to commit to what can be
an intense process.

I showed that in the United States,

requiring all fossil fuel-fired
power generators to close by 2035,

which is President Biden's power sector
decarbonization target,

would actually allow
the large majority of them

to meet or exceed a typical lifespan,

potentially giving communities
some confidence

that these deadlines are manageable.

That may not be true in places
with much newer infrastructure

and so the conversation
about how to choose these deadlines

would look quite different.

But in general,

being honest with people
about what's coming,

with enough time and support
to do something about it

can be really transformative,

but it does require a commitment
to the end point

and to proactively ensuring
people have what they need

to thrive alongside transition.

That is what earns and maintains trust.

Not far off emissions targets
with vague implementation plans.

The alternative of unplanned transitions
is unacceptable, but common.

Notably, this is what
we would expect to see

if we just rely on clean energy
becoming cheap enough

to displace fossil energy systems.

What I've observed over the years
is that facilities might close suddenly

with a round of layoffs
and a bankruptcy notification

with very little notice
and no plan for what comes next.

Several years ago, I was working
on a survey in a coal mining community,

and the morning my survey
hit people's mailboxes,

about 500 coal miners
were suddenly laid off.

Just four US coal mining
companies used bankruptcy

to avoid about five
billion dollars in pensions

and environmental cleanup obligations
just between 2012 and 2017.

The coal industry in the United States
is actually pretty small,

now providing about 11 percent
of primary energy,

down from 18 percent a decade ago.

We're talking about successfully
retiring and replacing infrastructure

that supports 80 percent of energy use
globally and in the United States

all before I reach retirement age.

Planning the transition is an ethical
responsibility that takes time,

but also creates opportunities
to implement a just and sustainable future

that corrects the harms of the past.

Collaboration and a laser-like focus

on ensuring people have what we need
to succeed through this transition

will be critical,

particularly as the transition collides
with climate tragedies.

What would we do now
if we believed we'd succeed?

Anticipating the bumps
and planning for success

is the path to a just, decarbonized
and sustainable world.

Thank you.

(Applause)

@zfy68
Copy link
Owner Author

zfy68 commented Mar 25, 2023

外国

图片,

你在车里,你开始

担心

你真的很依赖那个

加油站,

现在你不确定你是否会

到达你在地图上看到的下一个加油站,

这个 该地区因

不可靠的电台而臭名昭著,

您肯定没有足够的范围

来连接到您知道

通常可以正常工作的电台,甚至无法连接到

至少在其帮助热线上有不错的客户服务的电台,

因此您可以放慢速度以节省开支

当你看到一座巨大的山丘在

你前面的高速公路上出现时,你会感到精力充沛并叹息

人们开车的方式

你不可能在不

降低你的能源效率的情况下以安全的高速公路速度爬上这座山

它很热但是 你关掉你的交流电

并再次提醒自己

在汽车插座上给你的手机充电

实际上并没有消耗那么多

你自己想的能量

我记得这对 EVS 来说是个问题

但是当我买这辆车时我只是没有

认为发现

如果我们成功实现国际

气候目标,汽油将成为一个如此大的问题 支持

全球约 80% 能源

消耗的化石燃料基础设施系统将在未来几十年内大部分(如果不是完全)

退役

化石燃料在全球的主导地位

全球气候变化的紧急情况

意味着

无论基础设施

是相对陈旧的还是像

我在这些问题上工作的美国以及

我的大部分例子都来自那里,还是相对较

新的如我所说的许多工业化较新的国家,退休的必要性无处不在

我谈论的是大型

基础设施,如发电厂和

炼油厂,但也包括

加油站和人们的汽车炉灶和

熔炉化石

燃料基础设施是一个复杂的

高危险行业网络,

需要能够继续

安全运行,直到新系统

完全准备好接管,包括

在紧急情况下 Compl 受到

气候变化的影响

仅仅让这些​​系统消失将

具有严重的破坏性和危险性

我们预计会对

负担过重和服务不足的社区造成不成比例的伤害,

他们不能选择从飞涨的

价格中退出 放弃补救计划和

减少获得能源服务 这

意味着持续的化石支出

依赖可能不会比职业生涯更长久的行业中训练有素的工人,

同时关注

尽快淘汰这些相同的行业,

以解决气候

变化和许多其他环境

不公正问题,

这就是我们需要计划的原因,

现在 世界上基本上没有任何地方存在

这些迫切需要的逐步

淘汰化石系统

同时逐步采用清洁能源系统的计划

当我们谈论气候目标时

我想问的问题是如果我们真的

相信我们会成功

我们会怎样 现在需要做的是从

现在到成功之间的时间

Sarah histing Simon 和我称之为

中期过渡,这变得真实且非常困难,即使在最好的

情况下,它也可能会持续数

十年,

在中期过渡期间,清洁

能源系统和化石能源

系统都太小而无法实现

我们拥有的所有能源需求,但

足够大,以至于它们无法在

没有相互约束的情况下真正运行,

而且中间过渡与

气候过渡重叠,这意味着我们

预计我们现在拥有的系统随着

它们进一步运行而变得不那么实用

并且在设计参数之外,

这也意味着我们不完全知道

新系统需要什么才能

处理

这里的另一个问题是我们还

希望过渡系统通常

稳定的起点或

稳定的终点,只要两个系统都

在规模上运行,我们就无法

针对任何一个人的需求进行优化,

人们通常愿意接受某种

程度的 o f 问题是为了实现

共同的未来愿景,但相信

气候影响正在使一切变得更加

可怕时,如果需要几十年,愿景将非常脆弱,而我们正在明显

拆除人们

记得的功能性基础设施,

因为我们计划

保持清晰 并首先关注以

人为本,并

确保这些是社区主导的

项目将是至关重要的

现有

能源基础设施的好处之一是它存在,因此

您可以去发电厂休息室

和人们聊聊他们多久了

期望继续工作或

工厂现场的哪些部分可能需要修复

这意味着计划可以非常非常

具体,并由这些地方的人的专业知识指导,

如果发电厂

关闭,镇上的每个人都需要工作吗?

在他们的家中,哪些

加油站需要营业的时间超过

他们盈利的时间,以确保

每个人都能得到 t o 在

替代交通系统

成熟的同时工作

如果税收收入开始下降,图书馆需要多少额外资金,

尽管良好的过渡计划需要

深入社区

能源系统的规模和影响

需要某种程度的集中

协调

一种策略 这里是为

化石资产退休设定最后期限

充分的通知说十年给

社区足够的时间来制定和

实施计划,立法的结束

日期让人们有足够的信心来

承诺这可能是一个紧张的过程

我表明在美国

要求所有 化石燃料

发电机将在 2035 年之前关闭,这是

拜登总统的电力部门

脱碳目标 实际上

将使其中大部分达到

或超过典型寿命

有了更新的

基础设施,所以对话

关于如何选择这些截止日期的问题

看起来会大不相同,

但总的来说,如果

有足够的时间和

支持来对人们诚实地做一些事情,这确实会带来

变革,但它确实

需要对终点的承诺

,并主动确保人们有

他们需要在转型过程中蓬勃发展,

这是赢得和维持信任的东西,

而不是实施计划含糊不清的遥远排放目标,计划

外转型的替代方案

是不可接受的,但很常见,

尤其是

如果我们仅仅依靠清洁能源

成为现实,这就是我们期望看到的 便宜到足以取代化石

能源系统

多年来我观察到的是,

设施可能会突然关闭,

伴随着一轮裁员和破产

通知,几乎没有通知,而且

几年前我正在做一项

调查 在一个煤矿社区,

早上我的调查发送到人们的

邮箱,大约 500 名煤矿工人 仅在

2012 年

至 2017 年间突然裁员,仅有四家美国煤矿公司利用破产来逃避约 50 亿美元的养老金和环境清理义务。美国的煤炭行业

实际上规模很小,

现在提供了约 11% 的

一次能源 从十年前的 18 岁开始,

我们正在谈论成功

退休和更换

支持全球和美国 80% 能源使用的基础设施,

所有这些都在

我达到退休年龄之前

规划过渡是一项道德

责任,需要时间但也

创造了实施机会

调整和可持续的未来,

纠正过去合作的危害,

并像激光一样专注于

确保人们拥有我们

在这一过渡中取得成功所需的东西,这将是

至关重要的,特别是当过渡

与气候悲剧发生冲突时,

如果我们相信我们现在会做什么

成功

预料到成功的颠簸和计划

是 th 调整

脱碳和可持续世界的路径谢谢

[鼓掌]

[音乐]

[鼓掌]

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
TEDTalk technology, entertainment, design talk
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant