5 ms·

Sorry but this is wishful thinking to say the least. Oil, coal and gas not only are cheap, reliable, plentiful and versatile materials we have learned to turn

Sorry but this is wishful thinking to say the least. Oil, coal and gas not only are cheap, reliable, plentiful and versatile materials we have learned to turn into an excellent source for transportation, they are also used for many other things we take for granted. Probably 80% of the stuff we surround ourselves with is made of oil-based products some way or another. I happen to be involved with a group that is trying to find alternatives to ex. plastic but it's simply not even close to looking like we have useful alternative let alone for the multitude of usages plastic can be used for. For energy, we are even further of. This is a physics problem it's not like there were just a bunch of easy solutions waiting for someone to pick them up. Oil won for a number of reasons. What most people forget is that it's not like oil somehow dominated simply because it was being promoted by some evil conglomerate, oil dominated and still dominates because of the many different ways we can utilize it to make our live better, safer, easier, richer more plentiful etc. Furthermore things like this: "> A central argument for fossil fuels’ continued dominance is that humanity will surpass 10 billion at some point, and all those people will want something like the Western living standards built over the past 100 years on the back of coal, gas, and oil. Yet what a poverty of imagination this betrays, especially in light of climate change, which hits the poorest hardest. How can that be the pinnacle of civilization? What even constitutes “higher living standards” in a world where the costs of our existing technologies are so transparent? Far from securing hydrocarbon dominance for another 100 years, the needs and aspirations of future generations demand it give way to something more sustainable." Is especially missing the point. Nature didn't give us a safe and friendly environment we made unsafely, it gave us a hostile and unfriendly environment that we through the use of ex fossil fuels have made safe. The poor nations will only be hardest affected if they don't have access to cheap and plentiful energy which is what the environmental movement seems to be pushing for. I don't think that's done on purpose but the result is that poor nations will be more dependent on rich nations if we don't allow them to gain propserity. I know that this is heresy on HN but it needs to be said.

beat 7y ago
It seems reasonable to me that the transition to renewables will make energy even cheaper, and absolutely less dependent on international markets (like the little problem that 40% of internationally exchanged oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz). So it's almost certainly a good thing for poorer nations. Contrast this with the ever-popular HN push for nuclear power. Many nations lack the infrastructure to support such a complex and expensive endeavor, and some frankly can't be trusted with it. So a nuclear future is far, far worse than a renewable future. Oil won for good reasons a hundred years ago. And it's going to lose for good reasons over the next hundred years.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Which renewables are you referring to? What renewables can both give us plastic, pesticides, concrete? What renewables can deliver cheap, reliable, scalable energy anywhere needed? The most popular forms of renewables like wind and solar are not even close to being stable, reliable or cheap, furthermore they only deliver electricity which is what? 20% of the total energy needs? Nuclear is expensive because of the regulations not because of technology and more people die from wind and solar than from nuclear. Having been involved in investing in this space it's pretty obvious that we aren't even close to having alternatives, as in not even in a couple of decades. You take away the Chinese investment in renewables and the rest of the world's investment in renewables are falling not rising and even with the Chinese investments it's stalling. There is such an insane amount of groupthink going on here that I know people aren't going to actually accept it but it's very easy to get a reality check simply by taking $10K and find a company which you trust will succeed after you do due diligence. You will quickly find out that we are kind of at the forefront of energy and alternatives where we are and that means less than 1% of the worlds global energy consumption (not just electricity) is wind and solar. A far cry from what you will hear german and danish politicians claim.
  - beat 7y ago
    Ok, you're just wrong on some of this stuff. When I say "renewable", I mean wind and solar for the most part, so keep that in mind. No, renewables don't solve the plastic/pesticides/concrete problem. It's energy, not hardware. Renewables can and do deliver cheap, reliable, scalable energy. The automobile is a really good example of that, and electric cars are quickly edging out internal combustion. I imagine we're no more than two decades from total electric car base. There is such a thing as batteries, you know. Wind and solar are only delivering x% of our power now, but time moves, and they are growing exponentially. Their lower cost provides a strong financial incentive to do all new construction in renewables. So again, over the next few decades, we will transition to a mostly-renewable grid. Nuclear is expensive because it's hard, not because of "regulation". And considering the track record of the industry and the consequences of failure, I'm all for the regulation. If regulation was the problem, we'd see more nuclear in nations with very little environmental regulation and strong central governments, like Russia and China. But they still only get a small fraction of their power from nuclear, and it's about to be outstripped by renewables. Because renewable is much cheaper. I wouldn't invest in the industry because a: speculating on individual companies is just gambling (an industry fund would be different), and b: the cost of energy is going to go down, so profit margins won't be great. It'll wipe out the fossil energy industry, but the end result will be the world spending less money for more energy. Bad investment, good for humanity.
sprafa 7y ago
What? You have literally written 0 arguments that relate to the text in any meaningful way.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  I thought it was a pretty simple argument though. We won't abandon hydrocarbon sources anytime soon because there aren't any alternatives no matter what gets written in articles from people who want to abolish it.
  - sprafa 7y ago
    The article is about renewables becoming cheaper and more competitive with hydrocarbons as we speak. Even in the absence of a carbon tax to pay back for its huge externalities. Do you have some evidence the fall in prices of ie solar will not happen even though it’s trending that way? That would be more interesting than your blanket statement.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      Which is not true as renewables need backup energy which isnt calculated in. Investments into renewables is falling and stagnating not increasing.
      - sprafa 7y ago
        Please share sources and data and stop posting blanket statements.
        ThomPete 7y ago
        https://www.globalresearch.ca/growth-renewables-stalled-investment-falling/5678889?fbclid=IwAR0Sd3mRotIjpUDmwO-6M1t9lQ4buvB8BW8ceQBlJesRA5b4rgUW23Af7FU https://www.globalresearch.ca/growth-renewables-stalled-inve...
        7y ago
tjr225 7y ago
> Oil, coal and gas not only are cheap, reliable, plentiful Is it cheap? Is it only cheap because we subsidize the externalities they impose? Is it plentiful? It is a finite resource, whereas wind, solar are not. > it gave us a hostile and unfriendly environment that we through the use of ex fossil fuels have made safe. How safe is our environment if it is destroyed or otherwise rendered uninhabitable by the consumption/burning of the very same fossil fuels?
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Is it cheap? Is it only cheap because we subsidize the externalities they impose? When you factor in the positive externalities I think it's safe to say it's pretty cheap yes. It's a finite resource but we get better and better at utilizing it and keep finding new areas. It doesn't have to be infinite it just has to allow us to develop new forms of resources. "How safe is our environment if it is destroyed or otherwise rendered uninhabitable by the consumption/burning of the very same fossil fuels?" It's not rendered uninhabitable. In fact, it allows us to live places that used to be uninhabitable.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    So far, but it's looking likely that continuing to consume them will render large swathes of our planet uninhabitable. A pretty significant externality!
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      What are you talking about? Oil makes the environment cleaner not dirtier. Do you know how many wells are naturally polluted by nature? How uninhabitable large parts of the world would be if it wasn't for the use of fossil fuels? You rather live like we used to? Like animals? What are you willing to give up?
      - dang 7y ago
        Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? We've had to warn you about this before. Accounts that propagate flamewars repeatedly, we eventually have to ban. I don't want to have to ban you, so please stop doing this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

beat 7y ago

It seems reasonable to me that the transition to renewables will make energy even cheaper, and absolutely less dependent on international markets (like the little problem that 40% of internationally exchanged oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz). So it's almost certainly a good thing for poorer nations. Contrast this with the ever-popular HN push for nuclear power. Many nations lack the infrastructure to support such a complex and expensive endeavor, and some frankly can't be trusted with it. So a nuclear future is far, far worse than a renewable future. Oil won for good reasons a hundred years ago. And it's going to lose for good reasons over the next hundred years.

ThomPete 7y ago
Which renewables are you referring to? What renewables can both give us plastic, pesticides, concrete? What renewables can deliver cheap, reliable, scalable energy anywhere needed? The most popular forms of renewables like wind and solar are not even close to being stable, reliable or cheap, furthermore they only deliver electricity which is what? 20% of the total energy needs? Nuclear is expensive because of the regulations not because of technology and more people die from wind and solar than from nuclear. Having been involved in investing in this space it's pretty obvious that we aren't even close to having alternatives, as in not even in a couple of decades. You take away the Chinese investment in renewables and the rest of the world's investment in renewables are falling not rising and even with the Chinese investments it's stalling. There is such an insane amount of groupthink going on here that I know people aren't going to actually accept it but it's very easy to get a reality check simply by taking $10K and find a company which you trust will succeed after you do due diligence. You will quickly find out that we are kind of at the forefront of energy and alternatives where we are and that means less than 1% of the worlds global energy consumption (not just electricity) is wind and solar. A far cry from what you will hear german and danish politicians claim.
- beat 7y ago
  Ok, you're just wrong on some of this stuff. When I say "renewable", I mean wind and solar for the most part, so keep that in mind. No, renewables don't solve the plastic/pesticides/concrete problem. It's energy, not hardware. Renewables can and do deliver cheap, reliable, scalable energy. The automobile is a really good example of that, and electric cars are quickly edging out internal combustion. I imagine we're no more than two decades from total electric car base. There is such a thing as batteries, you know. Wind and solar are only delivering x% of our power now, but time moves, and they are growing exponentially. Their lower cost provides a strong financial incentive to do all new construction in renewables. So again, over the next few decades, we will transition to a mostly-renewable grid. Nuclear is expensive because it's hard, not because of "regulation". And considering the track record of the industry and the consequences of failure, I'm all for the regulation. If regulation was the problem, we'd see more nuclear in nations with very little environmental regulation and strong central governments, like Russia and China. But they still only get a small fraction of their power from nuclear, and it's about to be outstripped by renewables. Because renewable is much cheaper. I wouldn't invest in the industry because a: speculating on individual companies is just gambling (an industry fund would be different), and b: the cost of energy is going to go down, so profit margins won't be great. It'll wipe out the fossil energy industry, but the end result will be the world spending less money for more energy. Bad investment, good for humanity.

sprafa 7y ago

What? You have literally written 0 arguments that relate to the text in any meaningful way.

ThomPete 7y ago
I thought it was a pretty simple argument though. We won't abandon hydrocarbon sources anytime soon because there aren't any alternatives no matter what gets written in articles from people who want to abolish it.
- sprafa 7y ago
  The article is about renewables becoming cheaper and more competitive with hydrocarbons as we speak. Even in the absence of a carbon tax to pay back for its huge externalities. Do you have some evidence the fall in prices of ie solar will not happen even though it’s trending that way? That would be more interesting than your blanket statement.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    Which is not true as renewables need backup energy which isnt calculated in. Investments into renewables is falling and stagnating not increasing.
    - sprafa 7y ago
      Please share sources and data and stop posting blanket statements.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        https://www.globalresearch.ca/growth-renewables-stalled-investment-falling/5678889?fbclid=IwAR0Sd3mRotIjpUDmwO-6M1t9lQ4buvB8BW8ceQBlJesRA5b4rgUW23Af7FU https://www.globalresearch.ca/growth-renewables-stalled-inve...
        7y ago

tjr225 7y ago

> Oil, coal and gas not only are cheap, reliable, plentiful Is it cheap? Is it only cheap because we subsidize the externalities they impose? Is it plentiful? It is a finite resource, whereas wind, solar are not. > it gave us a hostile and unfriendly environment that we through the use of ex fossil fuels have made safe. How safe is our environment if it is destroyed or otherwise rendered uninhabitable by the consumption/burning of the very same fossil fuels?

ThomPete 7y ago
Is it cheap? Is it only cheap because we subsidize the externalities they impose? When you factor in the positive externalities I think it's safe to say it's pretty cheap yes. It's a finite resource but we get better and better at utilizing it and keep finding new areas. It doesn't have to be infinite it just has to allow us to develop new forms of resources. "How safe is our environment if it is destroyed or otherwise rendered uninhabitable by the consumption/burning of the very same fossil fuels?" It's not rendered uninhabitable. In fact, it allows us to live places that used to be uninhabitable.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  So far, but it's looking likely that continuing to consume them will render large swathes of our planet uninhabitable. A pretty significant externality!
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    What are you talking about? Oil makes the environment cleaner not dirtier. Do you know how many wells are naturally polluted by nature? How uninhabitable large parts of the world would be if it wasn't for the use of fossil fuels? You rather live like we used to? Like animals? What are you willing to give up?
    - dang 7y ago
      Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? We've had to warn you about this before. Accounts that propagate flamewars repeatedly, we eventually have to ban. I don't want to have to ban you, so please stop doing this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html