5 ms·
As someone who's been pushing for renewables for quite a while now it's dismaying that it's taken a war to accelerate this push, but I'm glad to see that it's h
by ryukafalz 6mo ago
As someone who's been pushing for renewables for quite a while now it's dismaying that it's taken a war to accelerate this push, but I'm glad to see that it's happening at least.
It's doubly dismaying that my own country (US) is still doubling down on fossil fuels despite everything.
The concern about a new dependency on China is real, but renewables do have the advantage that once you have the infrastructure in place it keeps working without continuously importing fuel. Nonetheless, China has done a good job building up their PV/battery manufacturing capacity (including via subsidies for a while if I'm not mistaken) and to the extent the rest of the world wants to avoid a dependency on them we should do that too.
- markus_zhang 6mo agoI guess the oil industry is laughing their ass off nowadays. They can sell at such a premium. Inflation? YP.
- toomuchtodo 6mo agoIt’s just pulling forward future gains while shrinking the time horizon, if the world speeds the transition to renewables and electrification from this. Short term gain for faster irrelevance. Oil to $200/barrel please, as long as possible, same with LNG. Edit: Iran attack wipes out 17% of Qatar’s LNG capacity for up to five years, QatarEnergy CEO says - https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2026/03/19/iran-attack-wipes-out-17-of-qatars-lng-capacity-for-up-to-five-years-qatarenergy-ceo-says/ https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2026/03/19/iran-attack-... - March 19th, 2026 Looks like the global clean energy transition will be getting back up to speed.
- chii 6mo agoIt will take longer than the duration of the war to realistically transition to renewables in any quantity that truly matters. So the oil companies are happy because this temporarily brought forward future demand and thus profit, as well as expend a bunch of money/resources from competitors of oil which predicates a high price per barrel to make financial sense. If/when oil prices drop back down, these renewable investments might not compete. To truly transition over will mean doing it with the world kicking and screaming imho. It cannot be made smooth.
- graemep 6mo agoBusinesses are short termist these days. They will be happy to pull forward gains. Shareholder value, right?
- toomuchtodo 6mo agoCertainly, but you can solve for that with windfall taxes or nationalizing the oil industry in your jurisdiction, if there is the will. Based on all available evidence, the will does not exist. Broadly speaking, the overall system dependent on energy must adapt or die. The capital exists to decarbonize rapidly. How hard the arm must be twisted is the natural experiment to observe. In the meantime, all critical fossil assets are legitimate targets in the operating environment. These are all choices. If you are unhappy with the outcomes of choices you have the authority to make, make better choices.
- anonymars 6mo agoHeh, depends on who's nationalizing the oil industry. Isn't that the common thread for the present-day situations of Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- markus_zhang 6mo agoIf you tell me I can make 10 million bucks this year, with the penalty of not making anything for the rest of my life, I guess I don’t mind?
- toomuchtodo 6mo agoWould you have made it anyway? Can we stop you? Does it cause a negative externality that will be more rapidly diminished if you pull forward this gain? Consider it a premium paid by fossil fuel consumers to encourage a more rapid transition from fossil fuels by pushing pain into the energy market for the next half decade. Congrats to those who won the lotto, enjoy your luck.
- markus_zhang 6mo agoEh, definitely not me, still a salary slave. But yeah kudos to whoever won the oil lottery.
- noelsusman 6mo agoOil companies love $90 oil, but much higher than that and you start to run into demand destruction issues in the medium term.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- formvoltron 6mo ago[flagged]
- Jerrrrrrrry 6mo agoThoughtful comment. Please read hn rules.
- davedx 6mo agoI've been arguing with Europeans on twitter (including an environmental scientist) who believe this war shows we need to resume drilling in the North Sea and Groningen. It feels like this collective insanity will never end
- watwut 6mo agoThe Russian threat in the short term is very real and this is making Russia stronger. And the economic threat to Europe in the super short term is bigger then the one to America ... and will help internal fascist movements that are very much already empowered there (and sponsored and supported by BOTH Russia and America despite being very much homegrown). So, like, both I guess.
- layer8 6mo ago> It feels like this collective insanity will never end You’re referring to Twitter, right? ;)
- b00ty4breakfast 6mo agotwitter is a self-selected group these days, even assuming these are real people and not some kind of propaganda op. It's like going on stormfront and wondering why there's so many white nationalists on the internet.
- devilbunny 6mo ago> we need to resume drilling in the North Sea and Groningen Well, there's also the simple reality that the US doesn't actually need fossil fuels from the Middle East or Russia in the same way Europe does. It affects prices here, obviously, and an increase in energy prices can do severe damage to the economy, but it's not a potentially existential crisis in the same way.
- darth_avocado 6mo agoFunny part about oil is that it’s in everything. US is energy independent, but its supply chain is not. AI chips, for example, which prop up the entire economy need oil for the various materials needed to produce it. The other funny part about oil is that it has an inelastic demand. A 20% reduction in global supply doesn’t mean a 20% increase in prices. It means increase in prices until 20% demand collapses (which could theoretically mean orders of magnitude of increase in pricing). Which means expensive fertilizers, medicines and pretty every other bare necessity. With these two facts, pretty much every country needs the oil from the Middle East.
- anovikov 6mo agoBut why does US need any of that? It's a massive exporter of fossil fuels and will be much richer as a result (but yes just as every other way of getting richer, it will also increase inequality).
- standeven 6mo agoBurning fossil fuels also raises the global temperature, reduces air quality, and people still have to pay more at the pump.
- anovikov 6mo agoBut US mostly wins from global warming relatively, right? I mean, it's going to suffer less than others (except EU), for geographical reasons, thus winning. I don't think global warming is a concern for US at all (some places sure, Florida will be royally fucked, but not most places).
- graemep 6mo agoThe big winners from global warming will be Russia, China and Canada - places that will become more habitable. Its not just Florida. There are multiple problems. Many can be mitigated, but I very much doubt they will be as its easy to put off.
- _alternator_ 6mo agoThis seems like soft trolling. Global warming is canonically the opposite of a zero sum game. Everyone is losing.
- anovikov 6mo agoEveryone is suffering sure, but what matters is relative degree of it. Side that suffers less, wins against others and that's the only thing that matters. And no, in China global warming means worsening desertification, in Russia it means melting permafrost that covers 60% of the country, same in Canada. Europe and the US are uniquely positioned to suffer the least from it and many industries will win outright. For example, there will be year-round tourist season within continental EU: all summer on the Baltics and the North Sea and all winter in the Mediterranean; winemaking in Spain and southern France will suffer badly and in some places may become commercially non-viable, but will expand to great lot more territory in northern Germany, low countries, Poland, UK, thus enabling a lot richer wines due to great variety of soils.
- weinzierl 6mo ago"As someone who's been pushing for renewables for quite a while now it's dismaying that it's taken a war to accelerate this push, but I'm glad to see that it's happening at least." It takes tremendous hardship and a lot of time to push people to renewables. Give them their cheap oil back and they are hooked on the needle again in no time. Historically we've been there, multiple times. Sorry for the cynicism. I too hope it is finally happening at least, and maybe it is at last.
- shevy-java 6mo ago> It's doubly dismaying that my own country (US) is still doubling down on fossil fuels despite everything. A few get rich. Project2025 (that is, their hardwing agenda is the cover up for theft). We need to monitor these guys and then take back what they took from all of us globally.
- graemep 6mo ago> renewables do have the advantage that once you have the infrastructure in place it keeps working without continuously importing fuel There are issues if the infrastructure is network accessible and is updatable. The consumer end of it (e.g. home solar) is often dependent on apps etc. and is very vulnerable. I hope (probably optimistically) that critical systems are air gapped. Its always been obvious to me that we should have a variety or energy sources for security and its complacent to think otherwise. Over-reliance on an unstable region makes it all the worse.
- iancmceachern 6mo agoThe only thing that is dismaying you about this war is the fact that it caused people to push for more renewables?
- paulryanrogers 6mo agoThey didn't say 'only'. Unless there was an edit after your reply
- throwccp 6mo ago[dead]
- baq 6mo agoNobody wants to sacrifice growth today for stability tomorrow and there are good reasons why this stance makes sense. That said I’m all for it, too bad the supply chain disruption that this mess will cause will make it twice as hard as it could’ve been.
- lokimoon 6mo ago[flagged]
- spacephysics 6mo agoUnfortunately much of China’s perverse tactics (they’ve done this in a wide array of industries) is to steal patented tech and trade secrets from companies outside China, subsidize the manufacturing and development etc, then sell their product at an artificially low price which kills the original company and good faith competitors as they cannot compete with the artificially lower prices. Then once the dust settles they’re the only company which can handle large order sizes required for supply chains to build downstream products, and the world becomes further reliant on them. Security concerns and national defense aside, a prime example pre-ban was Huawei layer 1 infrastructure products which far exceeded feature density, and cost effectiveness than competitors due to the subsidies. They’ve done similar tactics with solar panels. This doesn’t imply China or their state sponsored companies never create novel tech, but there’s a hugely perverse system whose purpose is to illegally undercut competition overseas with no real recourse from the victim countries outside of total company bans. And even then, people find a way around the bans and the damage is already done to the original companies. Solar panels: https://www.marketplace.org/story/2021/12/09/chinas-state-sponsored-industrial-espionage-is-part-of-a-larger-system https://www.marketplace.org/story/2021/12/09/chinas-state-sp... Huawai: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/chinas-huawei-threat-us-national-security https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/chinas-huawei-threat-us-na...
- evolighting 6mo agosubsidize ? no all that shit just not worth that much; The profit marginsof these industries are ridiculously high, to the point that if you’re willing, you can manufacture many useful, high‑quality products. only when China could build them, there are real "free" market
- hypeatei 6mo agoIdeas are cheap and execution is what matters. Any attempt to "own" an idea is an exercise in futility and a sign that you probably suck at execution. Sorry, but we should be encouraging competition and reducing barriers, not sitting here crying that the Chinese are running laps around us because of intellectual property "theft"
- cogman10 6mo ago
- bee_rider 6mo agoResilience against geopolitical disruption has always been a nice characteristic of renewables (of course, centralizing the production in China is a mistake from that point of view, if for no other reason than the general danger of centralization). It is unfortunate though, if we needed an actual event to see this advantage.
- ta20240528 6mo ago"The concern about a new dependency on China is real," The dependency is latent, is only become a problem when you (USA) does something to dick with China's dependency on you. If you don't do that, no problems. The rest of us live just fine depending on things from China.
- KellyCriterion 6mo agoWell, but in case you have already infra & ecosystem, you could then affort maybe to produce a little bit mor expensive in your own country, if supply from china will be under threat like oil today? I would rather have solar everywhere and the risk depending on china (and the risk of producing something over market price) than the current ongoing forever riskof fossil dependency, because solar manufacturing you could resolve in theory in every country (at some scale), while fossil production is limited to a handful with no chance for anyone else to do it?
- leonidasrup 6mo agoGermany is very slowly starting to understand, exiting nuclear power and installing a lot of intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar power, does not make your country independent of fossil fuels. China builds a lot of renewables, but they don't build them to replace fossil fuels, they build them in addition to fossil fuels. We should absolutely not follow this way.
- ben_w 6mo agoGermany has plenty of coal (and gas) plants for when the dunkelflaute happen: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... But even if it didn't, not only grid-scale but also large-residential-scale batteries+PV is cheaper in Germany than industrially priced nuclear, and even "small" batteries+PV are cheaper than residential electricity: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2024/photovoltaic-plants-with-battery-cheaper-than-conventional-power-plants.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/... But electrification of transport and heating is more critical at this point than the inevitable short-term changes to electricity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
- leonidasrup 6mo agoYes, Germany has plenty of coal reserves. Germany has about as much subbituminous coal & lignite reserves as U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_reserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_reserves (But neither should Germany, U.S., China, India or any other country burn fossil fuels if possible). The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) are pure generation costs, you take total cost of generation (building power plant, operating costs, fuel, decommissioning) over expected life time and divide it total produced energy produced over expected life time. You don't take into account electric network as physical and economical system. For example you disregard transmission, demand for electricity, costs of stabilization of the energy grid, costs of backup - dunkelflaute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCOE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCOE The main problem of German electrification (and in general the whole Europe) are too high prices of electricity. The problem of too high CO2 emissions are too low CO2 prices (zero in U.S., low in China). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand