6 ms·

This is not just a coal story. Natural gas prices started rising a few months earlier, which put upward pressure on other energy commodities like coal and oil.

This is not just a coal story. Natural gas prices started rising a few months earlier, which put upward pressure on other energy commodities like coal and oil. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas

echelon 5y ago
Divesting of oil, coal, and natural gas is premature. We can't meet our needs with clean energy alone. Fossil fuels will still be needed for many years to come. China needs more coal, Europe needs more natural gas. Winter is coming.
- adrianN 5y ago
  This will stay true until we start divesting from fossil fuels and investing in clean energy.
- _8j50 5y ago
  Some here appear to disagree, as if fossil fuels are taboo now. You can't say no to nuclear and fossil fuels, that's just reality for the next few decades. After mid 2030's I can see coal dying and oil dwindling like coal is now. Even if somehow everyone adopted electric cars in the next 10 years fully that still leaves giant ships, planes, trucks and so much more applications that are simply uneconomical to displace within a short time even if the replacement's value is the old use's current market value. Fossil getting expensive long term means all those natural gas sites that covid shattered could now reopen because it is becoming profitable to take them out of ground. This benefits oil companies, but it also creates an opportunity for alternative energy conversion. Why heat houses in winter using expensive/price-unstable natural gas when solar and wind exist, except saying no to nuclear meant it can't even be used as a backup to solar/wind which they need for obvious reasons. Unless of course there is a new revolution in battery tech I don't know about
  - chrisjc 5y ago
    I'd say some don't like to hear the truth. But I get it. It's painful and unpleasant to hear especially when it comes to having any sort of empathy for the demise of fossil fuels and all of the related industries. In addition to all the fossil fuel vehicles that you mentioned, you have also consider all of the industries and livelihoods as well (I'm sure you meant this implicitly). Those who work in oil-fields/sea-platforms, ICE factories, refinement equipment, and so on... If such a transition could happen over night, it would be devastating to so many industries, individuals... even entire economies and countries. While it's difficult to have any sympathy for the incumbent/legacy/ICE car manufactures being "unable to compete" with Tesla and new wave of Chinese EV manufactures, it can't be easy for any of them to transition without significant pain. Esp with all of the incentives, laws, etc... that have set up over the last century. You have billions of dollars of oil subsidies, franchise laws, worker unions, and so on. This where the government needs to step in. Fossil fuel subsidies need to be phased out. Training citizens with the knowledge and experience to work in these new industries needs to be provided. New incentives for manufactures to transition to sustainable methods of transportation need to be created. Old one eliminated. Ties to and influence of lobbies associated to legacy industries and fossil fuels need to be dismantled, even if the only way to go about that is through the creation of new, more powerful and influential lobbies that represent clean and progressive alternatives. I have my doubts that Tesla would be what it is today if they had played by the book, no matter how superior their technology is. Clean tech can't fill the void left by fossil fuels? Start promoting and evangelizing the advantages of nuclear options. I guess my point is it's going to be painful no matter how much people fetishize clean tech. Everyone is going to suffer in one way or another, but it has to happen and it needs to start now. I know that there are things being done about it already, but it's not enough.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      > Fossil fuel subsidies need to be phased out. Fossil fuel subsidies are a social stability measure. There are going to be hard times when people can't afford fuel to heat their homes in winter, and have to endure lectures by the private-jet-to-next-climate-conference-crowd on how morally flawed they are for still affording to light up a candle at night.
- liotier 5y ago
  > We can't meet our needs with clean energy alone. Nuclear energy does that just fine - as a result, France is the lowest-carbon major nation.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    The jury is still out. We have not gone through a handful of construction/decommission cycles of nuclear power plants, simply because the lifetime of a nuclear power plant is over half a century or more, and France started its nuclear push as late as the '70s.
- lettergram 5y ago
  The U.S. has had stagnant energy production since 2008 https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-... The U.S. generates about as much energy from renewables as it does from nuclear. Combined (nuclear + renewables) only produces around 40% of the energy the U.S. consumes. In 2008, the combined nuclear + renewable energy accounted for 29% of the energy consumed by the U.S. (green energy production is only up 100% in 10 years). Mostly there was just a swap from Coal power to Natural gas power. Put another way, it'll be decades with no energy growth to replace the natural gas and coal energy production; baring some massive changes. At the end of the day, renewables are not going to cut it. We need a massive increase in nuclear, it's the only clear way. If the goal is to switch off coal and natural gas (which IMO, we should just keep using coal + natural gas). Cheaper energy, is the quickest way to reduce poverty.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    This argument is incoherent. Renewables did not force out existing fossil capacity on their own, so they are inferior to a nuclear plan where we do force out fossil capacity? Why not build renewables and also force out that fossil capacity?
varjag 5y ago
The gas hike is mostly the outcome of Putin's squeeze onto Western Europe to adopt NS2 on his terms.
- hourislate 5y ago
  Who would of thought? Didn't some US Administration hint at this, that Russia would leverage the pipe to fuck Europe? Unfortunately the current US Administration actually gave Putin the green light to fuck the Euro poors, sad..... Clown world....
  - wtf_is_up 5y ago
    I can think of 2 instances where Trump publicly questioned EU members' reliance on Russian energy. Once when he visited Poland and then later at a G7 summit.
    - hourislate 5y ago
      Yeah, that was what I was referring to. Trump was correct, Russia will fuck the Euro Poors like it is doing now. Biden who has dementia has no plan and basically gave Putin the green light.
  - the-dude 5y ago
    You mean the US actively tries to prevent NS2? As in sanctioning companies working on it? I just submitted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28828492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28828492
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Many companies have confirmed that Gazprom actually adheres to the existing contracts and prices. Gazprom is not, however, offering short-term sales at the currently negotiated long-term prices; in other words, Gazprom is not selling gas over the counter at 1/5 the market rate. This seems to me like one of these opportunities where some EU gov'ts are blaming Russia for something in a way that doesn't make too much sense once you look at it for more than five seconds, yet sounds superficially convincing. Things like that are always unfortunate when you could leverage more substantial criticism instead; hardly a tall order with Russia. See e.g. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-feels-heat-over-europes-red-hot-gas-prices-2021-10-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-feel...

echelon 5y ago

Divesting of oil, coal, and natural gas is premature. We can't meet our needs with clean energy alone. Fossil fuels will still be needed for many years to come. China needs more coal, Europe needs more natural gas. Winter is coming.

adrianN 5y ago
This will stay true until we start divesting from fossil fuels and investing in clean energy.
_8j50 5y ago
Some here appear to disagree, as if fossil fuels are taboo now. You can't say no to nuclear and fossil fuels, that's just reality for the next few decades. After mid 2030's I can see coal dying and oil dwindling like coal is now. Even if somehow everyone adopted electric cars in the next 10 years fully that still leaves giant ships, planes, trucks and so much more applications that are simply uneconomical to displace within a short time even if the replacement's value is the old use's current market value. Fossil getting expensive long term means all those natural gas sites that covid shattered could now reopen because it is becoming profitable to take them out of ground. This benefits oil companies, but it also creates an opportunity for alternative energy conversion. Why heat houses in winter using expensive/price-unstable natural gas when solar and wind exist, except saying no to nuclear meant it can't even be used as a backup to solar/wind which they need for obvious reasons. Unless of course there is a new revolution in battery tech I don't know about
- chrisjc 5y ago
  I'd say some don't like to hear the truth. But I get it. It's painful and unpleasant to hear especially when it comes to having any sort of empathy for the demise of fossil fuels and all of the related industries. In addition to all the fossil fuel vehicles that you mentioned, you have also consider all of the industries and livelihoods as well (I'm sure you meant this implicitly). Those who work in oil-fields/sea-platforms, ICE factories, refinement equipment, and so on... If such a transition could happen over night, it would be devastating to so many industries, individuals... even entire economies and countries. While it's difficult to have any sympathy for the incumbent/legacy/ICE car manufactures being "unable to compete" with Tesla and new wave of Chinese EV manufactures, it can't be easy for any of them to transition without significant pain. Esp with all of the incentives, laws, etc... that have set up over the last century. You have billions of dollars of oil subsidies, franchise laws, worker unions, and so on. This where the government needs to step in. Fossil fuel subsidies need to be phased out. Training citizens with the knowledge and experience to work in these new industries needs to be provided. New incentives for manufactures to transition to sustainable methods of transportation need to be created. Old one eliminated. Ties to and influence of lobbies associated to legacy industries and fossil fuels need to be dismantled, even if the only way to go about that is through the creation of new, more powerful and influential lobbies that represent clean and progressive alternatives. I have my doubts that Tesla would be what it is today if they had played by the book, no matter how superior their technology is. Clean tech can't fill the void left by fossil fuels? Start promoting and evangelizing the advantages of nuclear options. I guess my point is it's going to be painful no matter how much people fetishize clean tech. Everyone is going to suffer in one way or another, but it has to happen and it needs to start now. I know that there are things being done about it already, but it's not enough.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    > Fossil fuel subsidies need to be phased out. Fossil fuel subsidies are a social stability measure. There are going to be hard times when people can't afford fuel to heat their homes in winter, and have to endure lectures by the private-jet-to-next-climate-conference-crowd on how morally flawed they are for still affording to light up a candle at night.
liotier 5y ago
> We can't meet our needs with clean energy alone. Nuclear energy does that just fine - as a result, France is the lowest-carbon major nation.
- angelzen 5y ago
  The jury is still out. We have not gone through a handful of construction/decommission cycles of nuclear power plants, simply because the lifetime of a nuclear power plant is over half a century or more, and France started its nuclear push as late as the '70s.
lettergram 5y ago
The U.S. has had stagnant energy production since 2008 https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-... The U.S. generates about as much energy from renewables as it does from nuclear. Combined (nuclear + renewables) only produces around 40% of the energy the U.S. consumes. In 2008, the combined nuclear + renewable energy accounted for 29% of the energy consumed by the U.S. (green energy production is only up 100% in 10 years). Mostly there was just a swap from Coal power to Natural gas power. Put another way, it'll be decades with no energy growth to replace the natural gas and coal energy production; baring some massive changes. At the end of the day, renewables are not going to cut it. We need a massive increase in nuclear, it's the only clear way. If the goal is to switch off coal and natural gas (which IMO, we should just keep using coal + natural gas). Cheaper energy, is the quickest way to reduce poverty.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  This argument is incoherent. Renewables did not force out existing fossil capacity on their own, so they are inferior to a nuclear plan where we do force out fossil capacity? Why not build renewables and also force out that fossil capacity?

varjag 5y ago

The gas hike is mostly the outcome of Putin's squeeze onto Western Europe to adopt NS2 on his terms.

hourislate 5y ago
Who would of thought? Didn't some US Administration hint at this, that Russia would leverage the pipe to fuck Europe? Unfortunately the current US Administration actually gave Putin the green light to fuck the Euro poors, sad..... Clown world....
- wtf_is_up 5y ago
  I can think of 2 instances where Trump publicly questioned EU members' reliance on Russian energy. Once when he visited Poland and then later at a G7 summit.
  - hourislate 5y ago
    Yeah, that was what I was referring to. Trump was correct, Russia will fuck the Euro Poors like it is doing now. Biden who has dementia has no plan and basically gave Putin the green light.
- the-dude 5y ago
  You mean the US actively tries to prevent NS2? As in sanctioning companies working on it? I just submitted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28828492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28828492
formerly_proven 5y ago
Many companies have confirmed that Gazprom actually adheres to the existing contracts and prices. Gazprom is not, however, offering short-term sales at the currently negotiated long-term prices; in other words, Gazprom is not selling gas over the counter at 1/5 the market rate. This seems to me like one of these opportunities where some EU gov'ts are blaming Russia for something in a way that doesn't make too much sense once you look at it for more than five seconds, yet sounds superficially convincing. Things like that are always unfortunate when you could leverage more substantial criticism instead; hardly a tall order with Russia. See e.g. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-feels-heat-over-europes-red-hot-gas-prices-2021-10-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-feel...