After two decades of energy analysis & punditry, I conclude that most readers & listeners are attracted to technology stories, because they feel like they understand them. So we have hype cycles around fracking, hydrogen, nukes, etc.

But the things that actually matter--where the real #energytransition happens--are not technology stories at all! They're process and regulation and legislative stories... that bore our tech-obsessed audiences.

It's a real conundrum.

@chrisnelder @Kmac is one barrier simply that regulation is geographically bounded? I have always found that to be a conundrum. I’m not uninterested in the dramas of regulation of say one US state but it feels overwhelming to think you’d have to be across that in dozens or hundreds of jurisdictions before you could have a sweeping sense of what’s going on. Perhaps that desire to generalise is the problem.
@Kmac That’s definitely a problem for us US observers, but I don’t see it as much of an issue for the audience. Most of them don’t know the first thing about regulation in their states anyway. But they all fancy themselves experts on technology!
@chrisnelder I think there's something very important here and it relates more broadly to why "tech" as a news topic is so much more popular than "energy".

@Kmac @chrisnelder

And for "energy" most people seem to instinctively think "(electricity)". The language many experts use seems to aid and abet that tunnel vision.

@Kmac @RadReduction Conversely, the FF sector has called themselves the “energy” sector for a very long time, and Wall Street adopted that language, which has made it difficult to even talk about renewables. Which is why for decades they were called “alternative energy” etc.