Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 125 posts

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#31

Post by cassbot »

I was super happy to see this article and excitedly opened up the HN comments. Really disappointed by these comments.

What is unscientific or extreme about Inslee's position?

Ending fossil fuel subsidies does not mean fossil fuels are disappearing overnight. It means that the prices on fossil fuel derivatives will reflect their true prices, and consumers and the free market will adjust their consumption accordingly.

Don't feel sorry for the status quo. It has plenty of momentum, lobbyists, and big money to keep going the way it's going.

Inslee proposes to shift government incentives to what we wish to see more of. The fact that the technology does not exist now, is an even STRONGER reason to provide government incentives and deadlines for R&D.

How we get on the moon in a decade? A leader shared a vision. People had the courage to believe and make it happen.

We should EXPECT positive change and big vision from our leaders. Don't give up on the system!

“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any.” ― Alice Walker

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#32

Post by lacker »

Since the US only accounts for about 15% of global CO2 emission, even if through some political miracle all of this plan came to pass, it wouldn't slow down global warming very much.

We need solutions that will actually scale to be adopted by the whole planet. That means we need to make wind and solar cheaper, or possibly figure out how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Any solution that costs a whole lot of money and involves no technological innovation isn't going to work.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#33

Post by Gibbon1 »

phil248 wrote: post #21
godelski wrote: post #20

I want clean energy as much as the next guy, probably more (it's one of my top concerns). But plans like this are extremely naive. I agree, we need to get the of fossil fuels as fast as possible. But very few articles like this mention what we'd replace it with. Wind, solar, and hydro are all fantastic, but hydro is the only one that can produce constant output. It is also difficult to throttle the other two and brin…

Thermal solar can produce constant output. As can any system with sufficient storage capacity, be it battery or otherwise. It seems like most critiques of alternate energy come from a place of ignorance about alternative energy. No offense, it's just frustrating to hear people say "I care so much!" and then they don't even understand the basic landscape about which they claim to be so deeply concerned. It also seems…

> Thermal solar can produce constant output.

Problem with solar thermal is the cost of PV solar and wind has dropped so far it'd be cheaper to just heat your molten salt reservoir with electricity from PV or Wind. Worst case you get 50% of the energy back. Which means you only need to resell the stored power at ~2X plus overhead and capital costs to make a profit. Out of my kiester make it 2.5X then.

Buying PV solar for $50/MWH during the day and reselling it for $125MWH at night seems like a perfectly reasonable business model.

Much as I dislike reflexive 'free markets will solve all our problems' this seems like a case where that would work 'fine'.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#34

Post by bryanlarsen »

sxates wrote: post #3

These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…

The plan looks feasible to me. Certainly much more feasible than Kennedy's pledge to land on the moon before the end of the decade...

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#35

Post by greglindahl »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #18
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People can't switch from fossil-dependent careers to renewable-dependent careers in a week, or even a year. Or ever, perhaps. I can no longer remember where, but I recently read an article about a backlash by California Democrats against Green New Deal-type ideas. What stood out was someone saying that the idea of retraining workers for other types of jobs was offensive. If people in the oil and gas industry liked…

That's a tough thing. Imagine someone was telling you that you had to change your career because people decided it's no good. What will you do? Put your life on hold and go retrain for something you never intended to train for? Possibly (probably) earn less? Potentially need to move for work? It's complicated. I think it needs to happen. The US and Canada both spend major subsidies on oil and gas, and that money woul…

It’s already happened for almost everyone employed mining coal, because of automation. No climate change needed.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#36

Post by just_myles »

sxates wrote: post #3

These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…

I see your point. You don't want to wallop an entire industry but at some point it kind of has to happen.

"The second piece is phasing out fossil fuel production more broadly. Inslee would establish a “Presidential Commission on Energy Transition” (including the secretaries of several federal agencies) that will be “tasked with identifying and setting in motion the implementation of federal policies to phase out domestic fossil fuel production.” The commission will have a special focus on a “just transition” for fossil fuel workers and communities."

My biggest concern here. Hope it is more comprehensive than this vox outline.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#37

Post by opportune »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #18
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People can't switch from fossil-dependent careers to renewable-dependent careers in a week, or even a year. Or ever, perhaps. I can no longer remember where, but I recently read an article about a backlash by California Democrats against Green New Deal-type ideas. What stood out was someone saying that the idea of retraining workers for other types of jobs was offensive. If people in the oil and gas industry liked…

That's a tough thing. Imagine someone was telling you that you had to change your career because people decided it's no good. What will you do? Put your life on hold and go retrain for something you never intended to train for? Possibly (probably) earn less? Potentially need to move for work? It's complicated. I think it needs to happen. The US and Canada both spend major subsidies on oil and gas, and that money woul…

Do we also need to ensure jobs for carriage makers?

If we do a green new deal type of thing, I think it will work out in aggregate. There will be a massive increase in training for people to work on the manufacturing/installation of renewable energy production and another large need for engineers to design the new manufacturing components, electrical grid, and the large scale installations. Many manufacturing and installation jobs for fossil fuels will be lost but many similar jobs will also be created with renewables.

We generally seem to be ok with saying "eh, screw em" when people's livelihoods become obsolete. I don't see why this should be any different, given the stakes.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#39

Post by alexandercrohde »

lacker wrote: post #32

Since the US only accounts for about 15% of global CO2 emission, even if through some political miracle all of this plan came to pass, it wouldn't slow down global warming very much. We need solutions that will actually scale to be adopted by the whole planet. That means we need to make wind and solar cheaper, or possibly figure out how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Any solution that costs a whole lot of money a…

>> Any solution that costs a whole lot of money and involves no technological innovation isn't going to work.

A carbon-fee would put a market incentive for companies to invent technological solutions.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#40

Post by fooblitzky »

lacker wrote: post #32

Since the US only accounts for about 15% of global CO2 emission, even if through some political miracle all of this plan came to pass, it wouldn't slow down global warming very much. We need solutions that will actually scale to be adopted by the whole planet. That means we need to make wind and solar cheaper, or possibly figure out how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Any solution that costs a whole lot of money a…

Wow this is the first time I've seen this argument used for the USA. "Only" 15% of global emissions - out of 195 countries. It's still the world's second biggest emitter - I think it would slow down global warming a lot if the US cut emissions.

Usually this argument is trotted out in Australia, which is responsible for 1% of global emissions.

Post reply on HN