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

121–130 of 231 posts

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#121

Post by actionfromafar »

staunton wrote: post #97
pjc50 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're already, slowly, winning? And I think people have forgotten that the massive size difference didn't help America win in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam - in the long term. It's going to be a long war, though. It's effectively been running for a decade already.

The problem is that there is no reason to believe the war would stop even if Ukraine managed to push all Russian troops from their territory (with or without Crimea), which is quite unlikely in the first place. In fact, I've yet to hear a single concrete scenario for how that war could end other than with either government collapsing. I don't believe the Russian government will collapse any time soon. Assuming China…

At least I can't see how the current Russian administration could survive a loss in the Ukraine. On top of that, if the war drags on for years, the sanctions and general production losses are going to bite. Various far regions of Russia (Vladivostok?) may start looking for options. No need for overt rebellion, just tactically ignoring edicts from Moscow may crack the federation.

The future seems sad yes, but this situation didn't appear out of nowhere. The dragon seed in Russia (and China) has been growing for decades.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#122

Post by stef25 »

ben_w wrote: post #112
LatteLazy wrote: post #99

In almost the entire EU and especially here in the UK, governments have stepped in to spend huge amounts subsidising energy (including gas), SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY to that people don't use any less. As someone with decent insulation and solar panels etc, this was exactly the time those investments should have paid off and for other people to be left behind because they refused to take basic measures. Instead they…

Vime's boots. I'm not sure about here in the EU, but the UK has a cost of living crisis such that millions[0][1][2] are regularly skipping meals. People in that situation don't have the spare money be able to install PV or upgrade their insulation. [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/one-four-britons-skip-meals... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jan/26/uk-student... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/soc…

It's unfathomable to me that people in the UK are skipping meals. If you buy rice & beans in bulk you can fill your belly for less than £1 I'm sure. Quick look on the Tesco website

- bread: £0.39 £0.05/100g

- chicken soup: £0.60 £0.15/100g

- 1KG rice: £0.48 £0.48/kg

- Baked beans: £0.50 £1.19/kg

- Kidney beans: £0.59 £2.46/kg DR.WT

- Tinned mackerel: £0.85 £0.97/100g DR.WT (sardines are half the price)

- Eggs: £0.20 / piece

- 500g pasta: £0.41 £0.82/kg

People are probably just used to eating take-out or buying £8 microwave dishes for the whole family and don't know how to cook on a budget.

If you're really desperate, markets usually put aside vegetables that are too old to sell but you can make soup out of them no problem.

This all isn't very appealing or even healthy (although compared to microwave or takeout ...), but at least you're not going hungry.

If you can only send your kid to school with 1 slice of bread, you have other problems than money.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#123

Post by mihaic »

krageon wrote: post #69
colonCapitalDee wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you maybe skim the comment and not actually read it? My interpretation was that not letting people even voice some state-of-the-world opinions is an excessive speach limitation.

I do read the anger though, but I feel it's not the destructive kind, more the disappointed at the state of public discourse.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#124

Post by jillesvangurp »

rippercushions wrote: post #18
CalRobert wrote: post #7

Can anyone taking issue with this article please address the substance of it?

To me the article is just economics 101. 1) Supply is constrained (by the war and sanctions), demand is fixed to rising, so price goes up. 2) Price goes up, so there is more demand for alternatives, including dirty ones (coal) but also green ones (solar, wind, etc). 3) Increased investment in green energy sources will make them more competitive faster than expected and thus spur the transition.

Exactly. I would add to this that pro-longed price uncertainty for fossil fuels causes people to invest in alternatives to minimize their risk and exposure and to divest from any solutions involving coal or gas. Even if it's profitable right now, it might very well not be in just the blink of an eye. Coal and gas related assets are increasingly toxic from an investment point of view as well.

Also, renewables were already very competitive before the war started. The added price uncertainty since then is just widening the gap. Anyone who has the option is considering putting solar on their roof, replacing their gas boiler with a heat pump, and buying an EV. Once people start receiving 1000 euro monthly bills for heating, people are going to get creative trying to fix that. Such a thing has happened this winter and people are acting accordingly.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#125

Post by pjc50 »

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #101

Stupid question: But were does a normal citizen buy redox flow batteries? I googled far and wide, and those are just not sold in my area to end consumers (germany). Has somebody else a website were you can order those? I can order normal battery packs just fine, but the chemical storage ones ( https://redflow.com/ ) are vannishing into silence here in germany, for unknown reasons.

I don't think I've ever seen them aimed at the retail market?

The downside of flow batteries is that they're no longer solid state - they have mechanical pumping elements that require maintenance. I've only ever heard them discussed in the context of grid or industrial sized units, where the value provided by scale is enough to make the servicing economically worthwhile.

Which chemistry manages to use drinkable water for storage?

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#126

Post by JackMcMack »

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #116
butler14 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are new to me. Would you mind elaborating on why these specifically, rather than conventional LIon?

They have infinite loading cycles, they are rather bulky, basically a fluid medium is charged and discharged. This allows for the storage capacity to easily scale (the generator remains, the tanks increase). In addition the storage fluid can be rather friendly substance from a environment perspective (some use drinkable salty water). And cheap. And if you have a old pool or a old oil tank in your house you are basica…

I was skeptical, the site seemed to only show renders, nothing practical.

It looks real though: https://simonhackett.com/2021/05/23/redflow-gen3-zbm/

Datasheet: https://redflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/RDF1199-Redfl...

Nothing on price

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#127

Post by LatteLazy »

butler14 wrote: post #115
LatteLazy wrote: post #99

In almost the entire EU and especially here in the UK, governments have stepped in to spend huge amounts subsidising energy (including gas), SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY to that people don't use any less. As someone with decent insulation and solar panels etc, this was exactly the time those investments should have paid off and for other people to be left behind because they refused to take basic measures. Instead they…

This is a particularly cynical view from someone privileged enough to be able to afford solar panels. I have panels too. But I also have friends that can't pay their energy bill this month.

My solar panels were free, I got them in 2021. The local council installed them. They came the same week I applied and were really pleased to do it because they were under pressure as they're meant to get X household a month to hit an annual target and were badly behind.

https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/news/2021/free-solar-panels-barking-...

(there is now an income limit which I disagree with but whatever...)

I told my neighbours and enthusiastically recommended them.

They "weren't sure". Here we are 2 years later and they're concerned about energy prices.

The problem here is not and should not be money. I'd be all for free insulation, solar panels, better boilers, etc. And we rightly already do all that.

Then people say no because doing things is scary and why bother when you'll just be bailed out? That's the "small-c conservative" mindset we need to get out of. It causes 101 other social issues too but now I am just ranting.

I hope the link above inspires others to get them too

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#128

Post by kortilla »

pydry wrote: post #104
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Faster than what? This articles cites nothing more than a hunch and trends that existed pre war.

I’m sure you’re familiar with supply and demand. The investment in green tech is driven by price of renewables compared to price of fossil fuels.

A big decline in supply of fossil fuels (which is what has happened in Europe due to the war) shifts the trade-off significantly in favor of green energy. This shift can be so dramatic that it drives up the short term cost of green energy. That’s a good problem to have because it just means demand is really high, which can be solved by more investment in the supply side.

Your thesis that this would somehow reduce investment is completely backwards. You sell pickaxes during a gold rush, not before or after.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#129

Post by jillesvangurp »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #9
whatever1 wrote: post #2

War and subsidies have turbocharged the LNG transition. There, I fixed the title.

Natural gas compliments renewables until battery storage and renewables overproduction pushes out natural gas. It also produces smaller amounts of CO2 per unit of electricity produced versus coal. Recently, there was an HN thread about large amounts of UK wind curtailment. The largest battery storage system in Europe just went live to provide grid services that’ll negate the need for natural gas to provide those serv…

In Germany, the main function of LNG long term will be to smooth the transition of households from burning gas for heating to using heat pumps. As LNG is expensive, people who can will switch sooner than later. Also, rolling out heat pumps is going to take a long time and some people will be dependent on gas for as long as that is going to take.

A secondary role for LNG is to power gas peaker plants when renewables fall short. Mainly this can be done with existing gas plants. There's very little need for building more of those. Also, coal plants remain popular for this. Before the war the plan was replacing coal with gas plants. With current gas prices, that plan is out of the window and we're now looking at increased speed of the rollout of wind, solar, and batteries instead.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#130

Post by LemmyInThePub »

LatteLazy wrote: post #113
LemmyInThePub wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the UK, governments have stepped in to spend huge amounts subsidising energy (including gas), SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY to that people don't use any less No. The government stepped in because poor people (and many not so poor) could not afford to heat their homes over winter. It is (was) an emergency measure. The transition to green energy is well under way in the UK, regardless of temporary subsidies.

In the UK, they capped the price of energy per kWh. So they bailed out everyone, rich, poor and middle alike. And the more energy you used, the more support you got. So richer and more wasteful households got the MOST support. Saying "but the poor" while throwing money at the rich is pretty self-contradictory IMHO. If they'd at least made cash payments, even if it was the same per household, it would at least have in…

> So richer and more wasteful households got the MOST support.

I do agree the implementation of the scheme was very poor.....

....the reasons for which are down to our current governments unfortunate mix of poor competence and fruity ideology (thank $Deity Liss Truss wasn't around for too long!)

Post reply on HN