3 ms·

> The wealthy prefer fossil fuels because a mine or an oil well is and always has been a massive wealth concentrator. lots of wealthy people are anti-fossil fu

by graemep 4mo ago

> The wealthy prefer fossil fuels because a mine or an oil well is and always has been a massive wealth concentrator. lots of wealthy people are anti-fossil fuel. > Build a solar farm and it... just produces electricity. it needs land. It increases the value of land. Wealthy people own lots of land. The main objections for switching to wind and solar are variability in output and the cost of building all the new stuff. > Spain could become the energy powerhouse of Europe here. It's one of the most southernmost European countries and has plentiful sunshine. Fine if you are Spanish. Not so good if you are from the north of Europe or somewhere with less spare land. > It's worth adding that the privatization era of the 1980s and 1990s was a massive problem. Every utility in Europe should be nationalized. It's easier to subsidize energy shocks when you own the companies that are profiting from them. I think it would have the opposite effect. Its tempting to sustain the profits when you get them. I wonder whether the British government would be so keen on moving away from fossil fuels if it still owned BP?

jmyeet 4mo ago
> lots of wealthy people are anti-fossil fuel. They're really not. Or it's just perfrmative environmentalism. Because they continue to support to politicians and the system that maintains the status quo. > Fine if you are Spanish. Please read the whole paragraph. Transmitting power, which is what UHVDC lines are for and something China builds to transmit power thousands of kilometers from the Western half of the country to the Eastern half where everybody lives, exists [1]. Standard transmission lines lose 4-10%/1000km. UHVDC loses 1-3%/1000km. Europe loves importing electricity. It's the key to greenwashing. Why not build solar where it's most efficient and import that instead? > I wonder whether the British government would be so keen on moving away from fossil fuels if it still owned BP? The UK has spent hudnreds of billions of pounds subsidizing electricity that goes straight into the pockets of the shareholders of natural gas companies and private utilities. Is that better? [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OcsvNZeB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OcsvNZeB0
- graemep 4mo ago
  > They're really not. Or it's just perfrmative environmentalism. Because they continue to support to politicians and the system that maintains the status quo. There are a lot of wealthy people spending serious money on lobbying against fossil fuels: https://spectator.com/article/revealed-the-shady-funding-of-net-zero/?edition=us https://spectator.com/article/revealed-the-shady-funding-of-... > Europe loves importing electricity. It's the key to greenwashing Yes, its also a potential problem transmitting . > The UK has spent hudnreds of billions of pounds subsidizing electricity that goes straight into the pockets of the shareholders of natural gas companies and private utilities. It has spent a lot of money subsidising wind power. The UK has hugely cut its CO2 emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-kingdom https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-kingdom
  - jmyeet 4mo ago
    Oh... I understand now. You're right wing and quoting a right-wing dish rag like the Spectator to play into a conspiracy that "dark money" is pushing some "net zero" agenda, somehow at the expense of the UK. Got it. According to one study, the UK's investments in wind power have saved consumers 100 billion pounds since 2010 [1] all while spending 16-20 billion pounds a year on subsiizing natural gas [2] plus more on an emergency energy bill in 2020-2022. [1]: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/oct/analysis-wind-power-has-saved-uk-consumers-over-ps100-billion-2010-new-study https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/oct/analysis-wind-power-has-... [2]: https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/uk-government-subsidises-fossil-fuels-by-17-5-billion-every-year-new-research-reveals https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/uk-government-subsidis...
    - graemep 4mo ago
      Your first link (the credible one) says "This massive expansion of UK offshore wind is partly due to UK government subsidies." so it proves me right. The other one is a campaign group who say there are subsidies but fail to name a single specific one. Insulting people who come up with facts that do not suit your case does not prove anything, and there are guidelines on HN about personal attacks and assuming bad faith. Saying "Spectator bad" does not disprove anything it says either. Believing publications that take a line you agree with and disbelieving those that disagree with you is not a great way of learning facts.
adrianN 4mo ago
Solar doesn't need a lot of land. If we used all the land we currently use to grow biofuels for solar instead we'd be able to cover most of our energy needs already.

by graemep 4mo ago

jmyeet 4mo ago

> lots of wealthy people are anti-fossil fuel. They're really not. Or it's just perfrmative environmentalism. Because they continue to support to politicians and the system that maintains the status quo. > Fine if you are Spanish. Please read the whole paragraph. Transmitting power, which is what UHVDC lines are for and something China builds to transmit power thousands of kilometers from the Western half of the country to the Eastern half where everybody lives, exists [1]. Standard transmission lines lose 4-10%/1000km. UHVDC loses 1-3%/1000km. Europe loves importing electricity. It's the key to greenwashing. Why not build solar where it's most efficient and import that instead? > I wonder whether the British government would be so keen on moving away from fossil fuels if it still owned BP? The UK has spent hudnreds of billions of pounds subsidizing electricity that goes straight into the pockets of the shareholders of natural gas companies and private utilities. Is that better? [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OcsvNZeB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OcsvNZeB0

graemep 4mo ago
> They're really not. Or it's just perfrmative environmentalism. Because they continue to support to politicians and the system that maintains the status quo. There are a lot of wealthy people spending serious money on lobbying against fossil fuels: https://spectator.com/article/revealed-the-shady-funding-of-net-zero/?edition=us https://spectator.com/article/revealed-the-shady-funding-of-... > Europe loves importing electricity. It's the key to greenwashing Yes, its also a potential problem transmitting . > The UK has spent hudnreds of billions of pounds subsidizing electricity that goes straight into the pockets of the shareholders of natural gas companies and private utilities. It has spent a lot of money subsidising wind power. The UK has hugely cut its CO2 emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-kingdom https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-kingdom
- jmyeet 4mo ago
  Oh... I understand now. You're right wing and quoting a right-wing dish rag like the Spectator to play into a conspiracy that "dark money" is pushing some "net zero" agenda, somehow at the expense of the UK. Got it. According to one study, the UK's investments in wind power have saved consumers 100 billion pounds since 2010 [1] all while spending 16-20 billion pounds a year on subsiizing natural gas [2] plus more on an emergency energy bill in 2020-2022. [1]: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/oct/analysis-wind-power-has-saved-uk-consumers-over-ps100-billion-2010-new-study https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/oct/analysis-wind-power-has-... [2]: https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/uk-government-subsidises-fossil-fuels-by-17-5-billion-every-year-new-research-reveals https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/uk-government-subsidis...
  - graemep 4mo ago
    Your first link (the credible one) says "This massive expansion of UK offshore wind is partly due to UK government subsidies." so it proves me right. The other one is a campaign group who say there are subsidies but fail to name a single specific one. Insulting people who come up with facts that do not suit your case does not prove anything, and there are guidelines on HN about personal attacks and assuming bad faith. Saying "Spectator bad" does not disprove anything it says either. Believing publications that take a line you agree with and disbelieving those that disagree with you is not a great way of learning facts.

adrianN 4mo ago

Solar doesn't need a lot of land. If we used all the land we currently use to grow biofuels for solar instead we'd be able to cover most of our energy needs already.