6 ms·

I’ll bite. One impact here would be to reduce future investment in fossil fuels which will increase future prices. Because why would you invest? So setting up

• yakak 4y ago
  Do you want people to invest in tools to extract and burn all fossil fuels as quickly as possible or alternatives to fossil fuels? I would prefer the latter which means high taxes on fossil fuels and/or subsidies on its alternatives to push investment.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • Aerroon 4y ago
    What's the alternative? We've had renewable investments for a while now. People have been swearing up and down how renewables are cheaper and better alternatives and yet... We're in an energy crisis now, because we're not getting enough fossil fuels to burn.
    • toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Renewables are cheaper (and plentiful). If you choose to not build them, no one will shed a tear when you get punched in the face. How’s Germany’s “nuclear turndown and be beholden to Russian gas” policy working out? Regardless, stop subsidizing fossil fuels. There is no reason not to resource an energy transition and electrification of everything effort as if it was a war effort. To not do so is, clearly, full of economic peril.
      • FunnyBadger 4y ago
        • dang 4y ago
          We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        • toomuchtodo 4y ago
          • dang 4y ago
            Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      • JohnHaugeland 4y ago
        Renewables are only cheaper if you count nuclear as a renewable. When people say solar is cheaper, they neglect to consider the supporting subsidies, or the fact that 76% on global average of solar power is actually natural gas in-fill. At that rate, the whole grid could go solar and climate change would only be set back three years. It's a farce.
        • toomuchtodo 4y ago
          High level, fossil gas filling in when there are renewable shortfalls is acceptable in the short term due to the rapid energy transition occurring. Australia is on track to hit 100% renewables with solar, wind, batteries, hydro, and transmission in the next decade for example. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... Europe has equivalent wind potential to being able to power the world. As more renewables are deployed, this continues to push fossil gas to the margins. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/wind-power-in-europe-giant-wind-farm-could-power-entire-world/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/wind-power-in-europe-... NextEra’s latest investor deck forecasts battery backed solar and wind cheaper than existing natural gas, coal, and nuclear in the US before the end of the decade. https://cleantechnica.com/files/2022/06/lcoe-small.jpg?mrf-size=m https://cleantechnica.com/files/2022/06/lcoe-small.jpg?mrf-s... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=nextera%20investor%20deck&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
          • JohnHaugeland 4y ago
            76%. More than three quarters. For wind, the number is 72%. No, that isn't acceptable. If you take information from climate experts instead of vendors, they say the acceptable line is 5%. Solar is not clean. Wind is not clean. Three quarters means we're not actually solving the problem.
          • credit_guy 4y ago
            > is acceptable in the short term It's actually acceptable in the long term as well. To take the US. The forests absorb 13% of all the emissions. That's a whopping amount. We could retain all the current natural gas plants (and build some more) and if that were the only source of greenhouse emissions, we'd be below net zero. This would be more than enough to smooth out any intermittency from solar and wind. You'd need zero batteries and zero hydrogen storage. Just the combination of the current nuclear and hydro, the solar and wind that we'd build at the rate of the last decade for 3 decades in the future, and the current natural gas, and we'd be well below net zero. No need for new nuclear, or hydro, we could shut down all coal power plants, we could transition to electric transportation, zero emissions steel, concrete and fertilizers, all with just keeping the current trajectory of building solar and wind. And I'm as pro-nuke as they come. I'd like to see a nuclear renaissance, I really hope we'll do that, but we don't really need it to get to net zero by 2050.
      • ohiovr 4y ago
        Where does Germany get nuclear fuel from?
        • rs999gti 4y ago
          Same places as France, which are Kazakhstan (very nice), Canada, and Australia https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx#:~:text=About%20two-thirds%20of%20the,produced%20by%20in%20situ%20leaching https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c....