Skip to navigationSkip to content
Peter Repucci

Peter Repucci

Associate at Riverstone Holdings

Opinions are my own and do not represent my employer's positions, strategies, business operations, or opinions.

38 Following57.4k Followers
  • Consider me confused about where the author gets his stats - according to the EIA (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3), wind and solar accounted for 7.3% of total US electricity generation in 2017, more than 2x the figure quoted in this article (3%). My guess is he's factoring in fuel used in transportation, but that's a foolish way of looking at it - electric cars are a small fraction of the US' auto fleet, so 7% of the share of electric cars used in the US would obviously reduce

    Consider me confused about where the author gets his stats - according to the EIA (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3), wind and solar accounted for 7.3% of total US electricity generation in 2017, more than 2x the figure quoted in this article (3%). My guess is he's factoring in fuel used in transportation, but that's a foolish way of looking at it - electric cars are a small fraction of the US' auto fleet, so 7% of the share of electric cars used in the US would obviously reduce the overall percentage, but in a rather dishonest and misleading way.

    The author also somewhat arbitrarily picks wind and solar as the boogeymen for a pro-fossil fuel advocate, but it's nonsensical to totally ignore all the other low carbon / no carbon technologies that are out there, including most significantly hydropower (7.4% in 2017) and nuclear (20% in 2017) - combined, low carbon electricity generation accounted for 37% of the overall US energy mix in 2017. His "damning" comment on nuclear is that it would be a struggle to keep it (along with corn alcohol) at 10% of the America's energy supply. Again, he uses a misleading statistic, and he ignores the fact that nuclear is declining because of irrational political fear of nuclear plants, not because nuclear power generation isn't economically viable.

    Let's also set the record straight on the purpose of a carbon tax. Carbon (and accompanying pollution) is an externality to the economic system. The cost of pollution is borne by the population while the benefits are enjoyed by the producers of the pollution - a tragedy of the commons situation. A carbon tax shifts the burden of pollution onto the producer of the pollution and away from the population. Viewed in economic terms, this is simply an extension of the free market. The structure of the tax and the use of proceeds is an entirely different matter, but at its core a carbon tax should be viewed as an instrument of a free and capitalist market.

    Mark Mills is a partner at a venture fund focused on energy tech, which in his case refers to tech related to the oilfield services industry, so he has a clear bias here and I can't blame him for taking this position. But it's a misleading article driven by the same partisan garbage he's making fun of on the other side. I miss the days when cap and trade was a real discussion and possibility supported by both sides of the political spectrum; shame it never came to pass nationwide.

    Note - Opinions are my own and do not represent my employer's positions, strategies, business operations, or opinions.

  • Read the bullets at the top of the story: Belgium, France, Germany, and the UK have the same level of travel advisory as China now has. Move along now. Nothing to see here.

  • This is an interesting opinion piece that starts a good conversation but doesn't come close to answering the question posed in the title. A few convenient historical references and one off ideas (i.e. Human vs AI translators) don't support the creation of millions of jobs.

    That doesn't necessarily mean the author is wrong, but we should be cautious of relying on historical precedent when faced with these real issues. As has always been the case, it will be vital to methodically and thoughtfully

    This is an interesting opinion piece that starts a good conversation but doesn't come close to answering the question posed in the title. A few convenient historical references and one off ideas (i.e. Human vs AI translators) don't support the creation of millions of jobs.

    That doesn't necessarily mean the author is wrong, but we should be cautious of relying on historical precedent when faced with these real issues. As has always been the case, it will be vital to methodically and thoughtfully develop forward leaning answers to the questions posed by new technologies.

  • An excellent, well thought out piece giving great background to a complex issue. Definitely worth a thorough read!

  • This story makes some great points, but as we've seen in many cases, the value of these high growth tech companies doesn't necessarily come from where they are now but instead from where their user data can take them. I wouldn't be so quick to scorn the potential of a true self driving car network, and Uber certainly has a massive competitive advantage from its data in that arena. Amazon spends a huge amount on hard assets and remains a tech giant with astronomic growth prospects.

    That said, if

    This story makes some great points, but as we've seen in many cases, the value of these high growth tech companies doesn't necessarily come from where they are now but instead from where their user data can take them. I wouldn't be so quick to scorn the potential of a true self driving car network, and Uber certainly has a massive competitive advantage from its data in that arena. Amazon spends a huge amount on hard assets and remains a tech giant with astronomic growth prospects.

    That said, if we're talking IPO, there needs to be a clear path to achieving a goal or vision that is greater than what Uber is today - a path which Uber needs the capital raised in a public offering to achieve. An IPO that looks too much like a cashout option for existing investors is a huge red flag. Investors would be well advised to sit on the sideline for a bit here and see what comes of it.

    Side note - I don't think I've ever seen an article use the proper German plural of Wunderkind (Wunderkinder) instead of the anglicized wunderkinds before. Sure they didn't capitalize properly, but props nonetheless.

  • This is a huge step, both in the context of Iran and the US China trade relationship. Is this the step that crosses the line? I can't imagine China takes this lightly. Then again, maybe it all just goes away behind the scenes...

    That said, I'm surprised Canada decided to involve itself. Maybe there's some geopolitical nuance I'm missing, but that seems like a risky decision with little to no tangible benefit to Canada (a better relationship with Trump? Yippee.)

  • A great piece making an important point - anger is fast and easy. Being thoughtful and reasonable is difficult. But that doesn't mean we can allow ourselves to keep taking the easy way out - the only way to fix politics today is to do what we all learned in preschool: take a few deep breaths and either engage respectfully or walk away.

  • I must use data differently than a lot of commenters - except in very limited circumstances I rarely find myself exceeding 2GB/ month. Fi is an awesome plan for me as a result - I don't overpay for unlimited data I don't need, and I don't have to worry about buying an extra gig of data if I come close to a cap. Not to mention I don't have to deal with Verizon's garbage anymore. I'm excited to see this kind of consumer friendly mobile plan go mainstream.

  • That this is even possible is absolutely mind-blowing, no pun intended. If these brain creations (and full body bioreactors) actually gain sentience, can we ethically perform experiments on them? Once they've gained sentience, would it be ethical to remove that sentience in future bioreactors in order to restore the ethicality of experiments? Is it ethical to consider the ethics of experimenting on bioreactors when considering the massive human good their experiments could generate? Makes my head hurt.

  • What a silly decision to put one in NYC - already overcrowded, insanely expensive, and home to a public transportation network constantly on the brink of disaster. Maybe this will galvanize New York state to put more money into the subway system (and make it easier to take public transport to and from LGA and JFK), but I doubt it. In the meantime, rent will continue to skyrocket until NYC once again rivals SF. Amazon could have picked a second tier city to build up with its presence, but God forbid they do anything between the coasts.

Want more conversations like this?

Join the Quartz community for all the intelligence, without the noise.

App Store BadgeGoogle Play Badge
Leaderboard Screenshot

A community of leaders, subject matter experts, and curious minds bringing nuance back to how we talk about the news.

Editors' Picks Screenshot

No content overload: our editors will curate the most notable and discussion-worthy pieces for you every day.

Share Screenshot

Don’t just read the story, tell it: contribute your ideas and experience to the dialogue.