7 ms·

I'm still trying to figure out if dealing with OPEC and having to constantly control and monitor some of the most conflict prone areas and governments that have

I'm still trying to figure out if dealing with OPEC and having to constantly control and monitor some of the most conflict prone areas and governments that have no love for America. . . . OR. . . .having to deal with trying to be energy independent and all the issues that come with it like what's being pointed out in the article. There is no silver bullet for being able to power a country with 340+ million people - some of who live in very inhospitable climates (Arizona/Alaska) where one solution will work for everything and everybody. I'm not sure what the solution is, but every time something like this happens, we focus on all the negatives instead of understanding the alternatives aren't that great either.

kingkawn 2y ago
The military interventions around the world are not only due to our own needs for oil but also to control the access of others. Even if the US was energy independent the national security complex would still insist on invading everywhere
- burningChrome 2y ago
  Our military and standing as a super power has been in decline for a while now. I don't think we really have the military superiority or ability to just simply invade countries any more. With China, Russia and Iran aligning against us both economically and militarily, I don't see much of what you're talking about happening. Russia annexed Crimea and we did nothing. Russia invaded Ukraine and besides sending billions in aid, we haven't done anything militarily. The attacks against Israel went unprovoked and we've got all we can handle with the anti-Israeli protests going on here on our own soil - let alone trying to send troops to any of these hotspots. China has been sabre rattling about taking over Taiwan and all we can manage at this point are sternly worded memos. Add in the amount of conflict going on in Africa that nobody seems to want to deal with either. All the while China has steadily moved economically in on Africa and has essentially pushed us out of the country altogether. What you're saying in 2024? I don't see the US has the capabilities to do that any more.
  - golergka 2y ago
    Ukranian invasion in particular have shown that US and Europe seriously under-invested in military. While western countries have been able to do very impressive tech, it was produced in small quantities, and once a real (although a regional) war broke out, it became clear that even Russia can drastically outperform western factories in raw production capacity. With risks of much larger conflict with China become more serious, I really hope that americans reconsider their priorities and invest in military production before it's too late.
    - Tade0 2y ago
      Russia produces a lot, but loses even more. Indicators of that include bringing T-55 tanks to the battlefield, which require four, instead of the usual three, crew members to operate, which is troublesome. They produce artillery rounds at a rate of 250k per month, but fired approximately 10mln during the first two years of the war. The Black Sea Fleet is unlikely to recover anytime soon - if ever. The list goes on. What good is production capacity ig it's wasted like that?
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Russia is getting its brand new billion dollar (per unit) air defense systems blown up almost weekly by 1990s US equipment bud.
      - jazzyjackson 2y ago
        Ah, but how many weeks in a row? ;)
    - acdha 2y ago
      Is it a production problem or that the US government, especially the House Republicans, won’t approve sharing with Ukraine? Shipments appeared to resume instantly once permission was given, and that’s higher-tech stuff than what Russia is making or even buying from China and Iran.
  - ben_w 2y ago
- lambdasquirrel 2y ago
  It’s not for nothing that Europe and China have been outpacing the U.S. in terms of renewables deployment. The only country that sees military intervention as the fix is us.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Europe, honestly, just can't afford that, even if they wanted. This is why e.g. Germany still has to buy natural gas from Russia, even while supporting the war effort of Ukraine against Russia.
    - throwaway_qiwuw 2y ago
      Actually they built a bunch of LNG terminals very very quickly and now get most of their gas from that https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63709352 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63709352 You can see rapid progression to zero of Russian imports for natural gas in Germany if you scroll down to the info graphic in this article https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependence-imported-fossil-fuels https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependen... Germany is also famously anti nuclear
      - b3orn 2y ago
        Most gas in Germany comes via pipelines from Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. LNG is at around 10%. https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Gasversorgung/aktuelle_gasversorgung/_svg/Gasimporte/Gasimporte.html https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Gasversorgung/aktuelle_g...
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Not everything is about resources. Are you one of those people who thinks Taiwan is about chips? That conflict predates the chips, it's about face, prestige and reputation, but I often read people on HN saying it's all about chips. When all you have to explain the world is a hammer every problem will look like a nail. It's a form of cognitive bias.
llsf 2y ago
Energy production is national security. Each country should treat it as national security. US is lucky to have oil/gas fields, but it would not last for ever. Even ignoring the ecological impact of extracting fossil fuel, or impact on climate to burn fossil fuel, the fact that is a limited resource should force the US to move other energy production (e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, hydro) and migrate the energy consumption to electricity... if we want to soft land, when fossil fuel would get expensive (peak production, wars, etc.).
- EricE 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    You oughta go start an oil company then! The market is booming, can’t imagine how well you’d do with your secret knowledge about scarcity being all a marketing ploy.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      Do you really believe that the number of players in the market is a function of scarcity?
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        I think if something important to the market is scarce for other players but abundant for you, then you can easily go make a boatload of money. Just basic supply and demand.
        akira2501 2y ago
        > Just basic supply and demand. Ah. And where do "cartels" fit into that structure?
ZeoVII 2y ago
Nuclear is the future and I would say the only way to achieve a "green" one. There is the issue of spent fuel disposal, but hopefully if fusion technology advances, then even this could be solved.
- ok_dad 2y ago
  Also the issue of mining the uranium, which is horrible for the areas mined. Nuclear isn’t an option because of financial reasons anyways and probably never will be, and that’s as a person who loves nuclear and used to be a budding nuclear power plant operator.
  - tail_exchange 2y ago
    > Nuclear isn’t an option because of financial reasons anyways Can you say more? This is probably the first time I hear that nuclear energy is not financially viable.
    - ok_dad 2y ago
      It’s too expensive. Every other option is several times cheaper. It’ll never get less expensive because the inherent risks necessitate the expense. These expenses are mostly related to having to plan, construct, and operate a plant with perfection, which costs more than other power generation which don’t have as catastrophic a risk profile. Unfortunately, even with modern reactor designs, the risk remains high, so the cost remains high.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Almost but not quite. The rules that require perfection are not there because of actual risk. We're past the point where things are already so safe, and releasing so much less radiation than coal plants, that getting stricter just makes the world worse.
        ok_dad 2y ago
jazzyjackson 2y ago
energy independence != energy price isolation we still have to police the red sea despite producing enough oil for ourselves

kingkawn 2y ago

The military interventions around the world are not only due to our own needs for oil but also to control the access of others. Even if the US was energy independent the national security complex would still insist on invading everywhere

burningChrome 2y ago
Our military and standing as a super power has been in decline for a while now. I don't think we really have the military superiority or ability to just simply invade countries any more. With China, Russia and Iran aligning against us both economically and militarily, I don't see much of what you're talking about happening. Russia annexed Crimea and we did nothing. Russia invaded Ukraine and besides sending billions in aid, we haven't done anything militarily. The attacks against Israel went unprovoked and we've got all we can handle with the anti-Israeli protests going on here on our own soil - let alone trying to send troops to any of these hotspots. China has been sabre rattling about taking over Taiwan and all we can manage at this point are sternly worded memos. Add in the amount of conflict going on in Africa that nobody seems to want to deal with either. All the while China has steadily moved economically in on Africa and has essentially pushed us out of the country altogether. What you're saying in 2024? I don't see the US has the capabilities to do that any more.
- golergka 2y ago
  Ukranian invasion in particular have shown that US and Europe seriously under-invested in military. While western countries have been able to do very impressive tech, it was produced in small quantities, and once a real (although a regional) war broke out, it became clear that even Russia can drastically outperform western factories in raw production capacity. With risks of much larger conflict with China become more serious, I really hope that americans reconsider their priorities and invest in military production before it's too late.
  - Tade0 2y ago
    Russia produces a lot, but loses even more. Indicators of that include bringing T-55 tanks to the battlefield, which require four, instead of the usual three, crew members to operate, which is troublesome. They produce artillery rounds at a rate of 250k per month, but fired approximately 10mln during the first two years of the war. The Black Sea Fleet is unlikely to recover anytime soon - if ever. The list goes on. What good is production capacity ig it's wasted like that?
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Russia is getting its brand new billion dollar (per unit) air defense systems blown up almost weekly by 1990s US equipment bud.
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
      Ah, but how many weeks in a row? ;)
  - acdha 2y ago
    Is it a production problem or that the US government, especially the House Republicans, won’t approve sharing with Ukraine? Shipments appeared to resume instantly once permission was given, and that’s higher-tech stuff than what Russia is making or even buying from China and Iran.
- ben_w 2y ago
lambdasquirrel 2y ago
It’s not for nothing that Europe and China have been outpacing the U.S. in terms of renewables deployment. The only country that sees military intervention as the fix is us.
- nine_k 2y ago
  Europe, honestly, just can't afford that, even if they wanted. This is why e.g. Germany still has to buy natural gas from Russia, even while supporting the war effort of Ukraine against Russia.
  - throwaway_qiwuw 2y ago
    Actually they built a bunch of LNG terminals very very quickly and now get most of their gas from that https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63709352 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63709352 You can see rapid progression to zero of Russian imports for natural gas in Germany if you scroll down to the info graphic in this article https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependence-imported-fossil-fuels https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependen... Germany is also famously anti nuclear
    - b3orn 2y ago
      Most gas in Germany comes via pipelines from Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. LNG is at around 10%. https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Gasversorgung/aktuelle_gasversorgung/_svg/Gasimporte/Gasimporte.html https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Gasversorgung/aktuelle_g...
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Not everything is about resources. Are you one of those people who thinks Taiwan is about chips? That conflict predates the chips, it's about face, prestige and reputation, but I often read people on HN saying it's all about chips. When all you have to explain the world is a hammer every problem will look like a nail. It's a form of cognitive bias.

llsf 2y ago

Energy production is national security. Each country should treat it as national security. US is lucky to have oil/gas fields, but it would not last for ever. Even ignoring the ecological impact of extracting fossil fuel, or impact on climate to burn fossil fuel, the fact that is a limited resource should force the US to move other energy production (e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, hydro) and migrate the energy consumption to electricity... if we want to soft land, when fossil fuel would get expensive (peak production, wars, etc.).

EricE 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  You oughta go start an oil company then! The market is booming, can’t imagine how well you’d do with your secret knowledge about scarcity being all a marketing ploy.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    Do you really believe that the number of players in the market is a function of scarcity?
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      I think if something important to the market is scarce for other players but abundant for you, then you can easily go make a boatload of money. Just basic supply and demand.
      - akira2501 2y ago
        > Just basic supply and demand. Ah. And where do "cartels" fit into that structure?

ZeoVII 2y ago

Nuclear is the future and I would say the only way to achieve a "green" one. There is the issue of spent fuel disposal, but hopefully if fusion technology advances, then even this could be solved.

ok_dad 2y ago
Also the issue of mining the uranium, which is horrible for the areas mined. Nuclear isn’t an option because of financial reasons anyways and probably never will be, and that’s as a person who loves nuclear and used to be a budding nuclear power plant operator.
- tail_exchange 2y ago
  > Nuclear isn’t an option because of financial reasons anyways Can you say more? This is probably the first time I hear that nuclear energy is not financially viable.
  - ok_dad 2y ago
    It’s too expensive. Every other option is several times cheaper. It’ll never get less expensive because the inherent risks necessitate the expense. These expenses are mostly related to having to plan, construct, and operate a plant with perfection, which costs more than other power generation which don’t have as catastrophic a risk profile. Unfortunately, even with modern reactor designs, the risk remains high, so the cost remains high.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Almost but not quite. The rules that require perfection are not there because of actual risk. We're past the point where things are already so safe, and releasing so much less radiation than coal plants, that getting stricter just makes the world worse.
      - ok_dad 2y ago

jazzyjackson 2y ago

energy independence != energy price isolation we still have to police the red sea despite producing enough oil for ourselves