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

91–100 of 125 posts

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

#91

Post by ianai »

specialist wrote: post #80
godelski wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The solutions are out there if we put the money into it. If you're suggesting with putting that money into research and solving the problems then yes, I 100% agree (not sure how this wasn't conveyed in my post. In fact every time I post something like this I'm surprised people still respond this way. What am I doing wrong?). If you're saying with existing technology well... maybe. But I'm assuming the former becaus…

After 40 years of concern trolling (aka FUD), I'm fresh out of goodwill. Any one still not 100% onboard is the rump of the loyal opposition, or serves it, by default or design. PS- Thread is arguing PV & batteries, problems which wind and direct current will solve. Just assume smart people have already figured this stuff out and you're not in the loop. Remaining obstacles are wholly political.

There’s a link between market growth and oil prices and production. Ie higher prices mean lower growth and vice versa. Meanwhile, renewables can conceivably grow at whatever rate we decide to fund. Sure, there’s only so much sun or wind power available, for instance, but not so much for nuclear. The upper limits are also pretty high. Moving to renewables should open up greater growth than staying on fossil fuels in the longer term.

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

#92

Post by ianai »

cassbot wrote: post #31

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.…

Agreed on probably all points. Though I’m reasonably convinced that the technology does exist.

On price, oil prices have a significant, direct, and negative effect on market productivity. We could actually put ourselves into a depression by raising prices highly. This is both a reason to get ourselves off fossil fuels ASAP and a hurdle to doing so.

Politically, possibly the strongest and quickest change to the political system in the US would be passing the side stepping of the electoral college system across the states. It’s already over half way there. The House is more responsive to the democratic vote than the senate. The electoral college is the undemocratic influence on the President. So that change would make the 2/3rds of the federal government more democratic than current.

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

#93

Post by imtringued »

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…

There is no shortage of energy storage technologies. I don't know where this idea comes from. There is a lack of commercialisation of those technologies because you can't make a profit if your competitor is being subsidized for destroying the environment.

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

#94

Post by imtringued »

godelski wrote: post #30
phil248 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay, but I'm a scientist and I do interact with climate scientists. I specifically addressed your storage capacity comment. Be realistic, we just aren't there YET. We're close, but not there as of the writing of this comment. Energy is extremely complex. There is no easy solution like you're suggesting. Solar thermal won't work everywhere in the US. Wind doesn't work everywhere either. I'm tired of people that count…

You're so dumb here is a multitude of technologies that will work in concert that'll solve all those problems: lithium batteries, polymer and vanadium based flow batteries, thermal storage, compressed air storage (both offshore and onshore), power2gas(hydrogen and methane), not burning natural natural gas until needed(oh a classic!), hydro dams, conventional pumped hydro and hydraulic hydro, gravity battery cranes.

You're clearly not as smart as me.

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

#95

Post by kevingadd »

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…

Incrementalism is definitely safer, but it also doesn't work because every 4-8 years, global warming fans take over and unwind all the incremental improvements that have been made and kick us further down the slope towards complete disaster. Observe how in the US renewables investments and climate progress are being undone while the current political leaders are talking about bringing back coal. No amount of incremental progress will help if that stuff happens repeatedly. We have to fix it soon and fix it thoroughly so that our incremental progress doesn't just get undone in 4-8 years while the rest of the world is still sorting out their part of the climate crisis.

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

#96

Post by pteredactyl »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #69
pteredactyl wrote: post #53

Fossil fuel will be phased out when economically rational. Look at what natural gas did to carbon emissions in the US [0] Some Gov intervention may accelerate the change. But overall I’m weary of their efforts. [0] “Natural gas, which emits about half the amount of CO2 as coal, is being used more extensively due to its lower price and is displacing coal-fired generation...” https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/

Uh... it's already economically rational... It's called a "negative externality" and the economic consensus is that the correct way to make a market efficiently operate is by applying a tax on those who generate "negative externalities" (i.e. damage the world around them) that can offset the damage. This is very basic and undisputed economics, so I'm not sure why you're waiving that phrase around.

A tax would have to be enforced globally to be effective. Are you advocating for an International tax collector?

To add to that, you could be the arbiter of “negative externalities” since you have such a good handle on theoretical economics. You could then use your authority to tax and save the world.

Just want to say I’m very thankful you are here to share your intelligence via undisputed and very basic facts. I didn’t know reality was so black and white until you showed up. Thank you!

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

#97

Post by hudibras »

cassbot wrote: post #31

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.…

My feelings exactly. Depressing to see so many smart people here on HN saying "We need to do something about climate change!" But then when a presidential candidate rolls out an ambitious, comprehensive, soup-to-nuts proposal that fixes the problem, they say "No, not like that!"

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

#98

Post by tonyedgecombe »

sxates wrote: post #11
yokaze wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, that you say that. I actually think, policy based deprecation is the biggest possible boost the economy could get. Think CDs Vs Vinyl, VHS to DVD. Or more on point: Catalytic converters. Having to buy new stuff drives the economy, being content with "what works" throttles it (e.g. mobile devices, laptops). Sure, there might be a backlash, but it's not like there isn't any opposition now. Being to cautious (i.e…

Separate thought related to this-- I've personally made the following investments to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide I'm directly emitting -- and these are the sorts of things we'll need millions of people to do in the coming years: * 6kw of solar panels (no A/C): $22,000 * Powerwall batteries to power house when not sunny: $18,000 * Whole house insulation as part of remodel: $15,000 * Conversion of all kitchen a…

I wonder how much carbon was emitted from all your investments.

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

#99

Post by MR4D »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #90
MR4D wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but the timescale has to be over decades. People don’t adjust that quickly.

We don’t have the time. Anyway the response to WW2 shows we can adjust quickly to change.

Do you mean 20+ million dead and total destruction of several countries?

Saying we “adjusted” after that is disingenuous to say the least.

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

#100

Post by mikeash »

MR4D wrote: post #99
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t have the time. Anyway the response to WW2 shows we can adjust quickly to change.

Do you mean 20+ million dead and total destruction of several countries? Saying we “adjusted” after that is disingenuous to say the least.

I imagine they’re referring to the complete retooling of the US economy for war production.
Post reply on HN