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

War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 231 posts

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#61

Post by WeylandYutani »

stonogo wrote: post #37
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the same factors pushed the shale revolution in oil extraction The salient difference being the state intervention this time around. Fracking was largely private R&D.

The Department of Energy literally invented modern fracking; see the Eastern Gas Shales Project, which lasted for a decade and a half. Early commercial fracking worked off of shale mapping performed at Sandia National Lab; reference here https://energy.sandia.gov/wp-content/gallery/uploads/FINAL-H... (which research continues). Finally, the government provided $10 billion in tax cuts for unconventional gas drilling o…

The free market is considerably more government driven than people want to believe.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#62

Post by staunton »

pydry wrote: post #46
staunton wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any opinions on the actual article?

That was an opinion. They're trying to sell this war on its benefits as hard as they sold the invasion of Iraq.

It was an opinion on the source, not on what it says. Your second comment still doesn't adress any claims of the article, it just attributes malicious intent to it without mentioning what makes you think that.

The claim is that while rich countries don't really care enough about the climate to seriously pursue a "green transition", many now realized that they do care about energy self-sufficiency to accelerate it. Do you disagree? Do you think the article says something different?

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#63

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pydry wrote: post #49
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> spurious evidence Why are IEA forecasts spurious? > less crass form of war cheerleading Would the article be better if it just commented on the acceleration of investment in renewables, leaving unsaid the cause of said acceleration because some readers find it distasteful? This is one of the more surprisingly anti-intellectual threads I’ve seen on HN.

>Why are IEA forecasts spurious? What do they have to do with the war? Renewable energy was projected to grow anyway in spite of the war because of the declining costs of renewables. However, since they are capital intense and war made capital expensive... that'll be a drag on investment, won't it? >Would the article be better if it just commented on the acceleration of investment in renewables, leaving unsaid the ca…

> Renewable energy was projected to grow anyway in spite of the war because of the declining costs of renewables

And now it's growing faster. Because fossil fuel prices went up. That's the article's thesis.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#64

Post by [deleted] »

landemva wrote: post #59
jacquesm wrote: post #55

Just one datapoint: this war has motivated me to make at least this house as independent of external energy sources as possible within the limits of physics and my budget. Gas prices have gone up so far and so fast that freestanding houses are listed for sale all over the place here. I've installed a relatively large amount of solar (nominally a bit over 10 KW) and I'm using that to offset the gas bill as long as we…

I would have started with energy audit including blower door test and infrared pictures. Next I would have got busy sealing and insulating. New solar installs or heaters would then be considered.

[deleted]

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#65

Post by staunton »

pydry wrote: post #49
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> spurious evidence Why are IEA forecasts spurious? > less crass form of war cheerleading Would the article be better if it just commented on the acceleration of investment in renewables, leaving unsaid the cause of said acceleration because some readers find it distasteful? This is one of the more surprisingly anti-intellectual threads I’ve seen on HN.

>Why are IEA forecasts spurious? What do they have to do with the war? Renewable energy was projected to grow anyway in spite of the war because of the declining costs of renewables. However, since they are capital intense and war made capital expensive... that'll be a drag on investment, won't it? >Would the article be better if it just commented on the acceleration of investment in renewables, leaving unsaid the ca…

> It would be better if they were honest about the cause.

Which is what? What should they say about it?

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#66

Post by user3939382 »

staunton wrote: post #62
pydry wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was an opinion. They're trying to sell this war on its benefits as hard as they sold the invasion of Iraq.

It was an opinion on the source, not on what it says. Your second comment still doesn't adress any claims of the article, it just attributes malicious intent to it without mentioning what makes you think that. The claim is that while rich countries don't really care enough about the climate to seriously pursue a "green transition", many now realized that they do care about energy self-sufficiency to accelerate it. Do…

My opinion is that The Economist is looking for any angle to support the fleecing of the American people to the tune of $130B which we just handed over to the arms industry. The war was crafted by this industry through its puppeteering of the US government for expressly this purpose.

The Economist might as well write an article about the long-term positive impact on the planet of humans being obliterated by the nuclear war them and their neocon buddies are happy to risk.

95% of the people I've discussed this war with have absolutely no clue about the politics and history behind the current conflict and are repeating headlines they got from US corporate (propaganda) media outlets.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#67

Post by jacquesm »

landemva wrote: post #59
jacquesm wrote: post #55

Just one datapoint: this war has motivated me to make at least this house as independent of external energy sources as possible within the limits of physics and my budget. Gas prices have gone up so far and so fast that freestanding houses are listed for sale all over the place here. I've installed a relatively large amount of solar (nominally a bit over 10 KW) and I'm using that to offset the gas bill as long as we…

I would have started with energy audit including blower door test and infrared pictures. Next I would have got busy sealing and insulating. New solar installs or heaters would then be considered.

I did the IR picture thing, ran the numbers, and decided that the biggest ROI was to install panels, the house was already quite well insulated by the previous owners. But we are due for a refresh on all of the window frames + windows, those are definitely getting a bit old.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#68

Post by staunton »

user3939382 wrote: post #66
staunton wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was an opinion on the source, not on what it says. Your second comment still doesn't adress any claims of the article, it just attributes malicious intent to it without mentioning what makes you think that. The claim is that while rich countries don't really care enough about the climate to seriously pursue a "green transition", many now realized that they do care about energy self-sufficiency to accelerate it. Do…

My opinion is that The Economist is looking for any angle to support the fleecing of the American people to the tune of $130B which we just handed over to the arms industry. The war was crafted by this industry through its puppeteering of the US government for expressly this purpose. The Economist might as well write an article about the long-term positive impact on the planet of humans being obliterated by the nucle…

Which again is an opinion on the source and does not mention the content in any way. I must conclude that you're not interested in an object level discussion about the topic at hand.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#69

Post by krageon »

colonCapitalDee wrote: post #54
haswell wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming one believes your argument, a more charitable conclusion is that some people may be misguided, and a reexamination of their stance may be warranted. Calling people idiots isn’t going to change people’s minds, and people hold bad opinions about things all the time for reasons that aren’t as simplistic as “they’re an idiot”.

Idiot is me being charitable. People who believe that speech should be limited specifically because that speech may engender beliefs in others that they disagree with are idiots at best, and malicious authoritarians at worst. This isn't free speech absolutism, I'm not advocating for unrestricted misinformation, propaganda, or calls to violence. I'm stating that people who believe that "wrongthink" is not permissible…

You say it is not free speech absolutism, but in the same paragraph you say that any sort of limitation of speech or belief that some thoughts are simply bad is something only idiots want or have. It doesn't read as a well-rounded belief that came about from measured, reasonable thinking. It just reads as if you're angry.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#70

Post by krageon »

landemva wrote: post #59
jacquesm wrote: post #55

Just one datapoint: this war has motivated me to make at least this house as independent of external energy sources as possible within the limits of physics and my budget. Gas prices have gone up so far and so fast that freestanding houses are listed for sale all over the place here. I've installed a relatively large amount of solar (nominally a bit over 10 KW) and I'm using that to offset the gas bill as long as we…

I would have started with energy audit including blower door test and infrared pictures. Next I would have got busy sealing and insulating. New solar installs or heaters would then be considered.

If you seal properly you need mechanical ventilation. I'm not saying you're implying you don't, a lot of people around me forget such things and end up with very unhealthy living environments.
Post reply on HN