Solving Renewables' Communication Problem. Don't Tell, Show!

 

Renewable Energy has a serious problem of communication: most people don't understand it. Since all communication is based on storytelling, I propose to face it by using the technique used in storytelling called "Don't tell, show." Telling people that renewables can produce energy is not enough; we need to show that they are useful. And that means focusing on "resilience." (image source)

Years ago, a colleague of mine told me a story about the photovoltaic plant he had installed, one of the first in Italy. He said that a high-rank politician came to visit it. To show him that the plant was really working, my colleague connected its output to a small electric heater, showing how the resistive heating elements could be rapidly brought to a nice red glow. The politician refused to believe that the energy came from the PV panels, and he asked, "Where is the trick?" Apparently, he left still unconvinced.  

I have my own stories about this kind of cognitive dissonance, and you probably have yours. Many people don't deny that renewables can produce energy but consider them little more than nice toys for Greens. Come on, to really produce energy, you need to burn something; coal, oil, or gas; you need a big fire and engines turning. Otherwise, it is a joke, no more than that. 

You can see this attitude expressed, over and over, in the comments on social media. In its basic form, it goes as, "Renewable energy will never be able to replace fossil fuels." Similar statements are common, including the idea that renewables are not really renewable but "substitutable" or "replaceable," meaning that fossil fuels will always be needed to replace old plants as they wear out. Normally, these statements are presented as self-evident, and some people seem to be offended and to become aggressive when told that the opposite may be true.  

Contrasting this attitude using data is nearly impossible. The scientific argument in favor of renewables is mostly based on life cycle analysis (LCA) that currently leads to favorable estimates for their EROI (energy return for energy invested). It means that renewables can be recycled and can sustain a circular economy. But most people (including politicians) don't understand EROI. They don't understand that the uncertainty in the EROI estimates is typical of all scientific matters; they want certainties. The attitude of scientists does not help. They tend to avoid public debates and disseminate their results only as papers in scientific journals. Papers that nobody reads and which are ignored when it is time to make policy choices. It is the same problem we have with climate science. 

So, I believe we have to change tack. Since all communication is based on storytelling, we may use a well-known rule in storytelling that says, "Do not tell, show!" That is, it is not enough to tell people about quantitative estimates of this or that. We need to show people how renewable energy can be useful for them here and now, not a hundred years from now,

It is, in the end, a question of positioning: in the current historical phase, renewables can be seen as a tool for resilience, a concept that most people understand and appreciate. Many people interpret this idea in terms of PV panels on their roofs and batteries at home as an emergency supply in case of blackouts. It is not a bad idea in itself, but it is expensive, and many people don't have the kind of space needed to install PV panels. "Resilience" is a wider concept, and, at present, it implies not only a defense against blackouts but a most needed help for people who are facing high energy prices affecting their activities and their personal budgets. 

In Italy, we are experimenting with an interesting initiative called "Energy Communities," legislation that allows citizens to link together their energy production plants, forming a local community that gives advantages to both producers and consumers. These communities are on a small scale, but the same concept can be enlarged as a general barrier against emergencies and supply disruption. It is a question of networking at various scales. It also includes large-scale plants; they are certainly more efficient than home-based ones. But they need to be accepted by the public, otherwise it is hopeless. 

Framing renewables in this way, we see that we are not aiming at "replacing fossil fuels." It is possible, in principle, but it can't be a short-term goal. If we aim at resilience, we don't need a 100% replacement of fossil fuels. A country like Germany already produces about 50% of its electric energy from renewable sources. At this level, the renewable infrastructure may act as a national-level UPS (uninterruptible power supply), keeping the lights on, and the essential services going (food, transportation, health care, and others). These are achievable objectives in the short and medium term. They are also steps forward to creating a truly sustainable, large scale energy system. 

My colleague had chosen the right way to tell the story when he showed a politician how he could operate an electric heater using his PV plant. But that wasn't enough. We need to show that renewables not only produce energy, but produce useful energy for the community. It will also be a concrete set of actions to fight climate change. It is the right path for the future.   

Hating Renewable Energy: Something Went Wrong with People's Heads

 

I recently published a post on the current troubles with the supply of energy to Europe on my blog "The Seneca Effect." The post went viral, a little, and had more than 10,000 visualizations according to "Google Analytics." Most commenters agreed with my interpretation of the current political and strategic situation, but I also received a side stream of insults by people who, for some reason, objected to my statement that renewables are "much cheaper than fossil fuels and capable of replacing them." 

The commenter above said that I am a "complete clueless moron," another one said that I suffer of ignorant bias & agenda, others that I am in the payroll of the WEF, and another one asked "did they accept your application? How many virgins do you get?"

You can take these insults in stride, in a sense they are funny. But the Web is a garden of poisoned mushrooms and it takes little to become the target of a coordinated mobbing action, just like it happened recently to Prof. Desmet, in part with the same accusation, that is of belonging to the WEF.

Now, I understand that some subjects are politically charged, such as Covid vaccines, especially if they are supposed to be mandatory. And I understand that people feel hurt at what they see as an unacceptable intrusion of the state in their private sphere, and because of that, they will react strongly. Without going to the extreme of saying that vaccines are bioweapons designed to kill us, I agree with the idea that they should NOT be mandatory.

But, in this case, come on! All I said is that at present renewables are considerably less expensive than fossil fuels (and of nuclear energy, too). And I base this statement on the available data. You don't believe the data? Fine, then produce different data, but don't just react with insults. And don't react by linking to data that are, by now, obsolete. Most of the criticism against renewable energy is based on data that are decades old, often going back to the last century. 

On the basis of this, I think it IS possible to rebuild a functioning society based on renewables producing energy flows of the same order of magnitude as the present production (I recently coauthored a paper on this subject). I may be wrong, sure, and obviously it is not something we can do in a short time. It will take decades, at least. But I don't see why people should get mad at the idea that renewables can help us a lot in this difficult moment. Looks like you try to save someone who's drowning, and he refuses to touch your extended hand because you didn't disinfect it against viruses. 

So, what goes wrong inside people's heads? I think I should ask to my friend Chuck Pezeshky, an expert on empathy and how people deal with each other. Maybe he could write a post on his blog on this subject -- and I think he should. But, no matter what we say or do, I am afraid that plenty of people will keep insulting those who promote renewable energy. As long as they limit themselves to written insults, it is fine, but..............