[mitthrowaway2]

> How does one research and generate insights for what does not exist yet?

It's Zeno's paradox of research: we cannot think about what does not already exist, therefore nothing new can ever be brought into existence!

[pfdietz]

I call this "nothing can ever happen for the first time". One often hears it in passive-aggressive arguments against renewable energy.

[kragen]

it seems plausible that all new things are brought into existence unintentionally. that is, you tried to create something you imagined, but what you actually created was something else. certainly there are many examples of thinking about renewable energy that were completely wrong because they were based on presumptions that no longer hold, or in some cases were already wrong but in a nonobvious way

as my wife points out, we can't even imagine any of the things that do actually exist, only drastic simplifications thereof

[robertlagrant]

Never heard that in that context. Can you cite an example?

[pfdietz]

I constantly see the argument "no country has ever been powered by solar and wind", implying that it therefore can't be done, and that one should use nuclear instead (never mind the same is true of nuclear; not even France is fully nuclear powered).

[nwiswell]

> never mind the same is true of nuclear; not even France is fully nuclear powered

This seems somewhat bad-faith: nuclear does supply the majority of France's power, and since nuclear is a "base load" part of the mix, it would be inefficient to get 100% of power from nuclear rather than a peaking-friendly mix that includes e.g. hydro and gas.

[pfdietz]

Focusing only on the grid is bad faith; if one includes non-grid energy use, France doesn't even get 50% of its energy from nuclear.

[robertlagrant]

What's the non-grid energy use?