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

Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 474 posts

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#121

Post by giantg2 »

adrian_b wrote: post #106
giantg2 wrote: post #77

While it could be good to shift to renewable for other reasons, it's naive to assume that nations won't be dependent on others for critical minerals and metals needed to make solar/wind/batteries/etc.

The dependencies needed for the replacement of equipment having a lifetime of many decades are infinitely less dangerous than the dependencies for consumables like fuel. For critical minerals and metals it is easy to stockpile them to have a buffer sufficient for many years of infrastructure replacement. Such dependencies may remain a problem during a war, when the infrastructure could be destroyed, but in normal tim…

I'm not sure the stockpiling you mention will work the way you propose. We already stockpile oil, yet we still see price shocks. Stockpiling metals can still lead to price shocks due to reluctance to release them and the need to eventually replenish them.

We also stockpile foods and medications, and that doesn't provide price stability.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#122

Post by KaiserPro »

tfourb wrote: post #32
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in the election that is running in Denmark right now it looks like nuclear power is back on the table.

Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh than wind + battery in Denmark, which also has excellent links to reliable hydropower from Norway and Sweden? Especially when your greatest external security threat is Russia which has openly threatened targeting nuclear reactors of a country they are trying to invade? Not to speak of the inconvenient fact that Uranium is not a resou…

> Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh than wind + battery in Denmark

Strategic mix.

I'm not saying its a good or bad idea, but nuclear can be used as a tool with batteries to make wind much more reliable. urianium sourcing can be an issue, but sadly so are batteries. (granted nuclear fuel is changed more often)

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#123

Post by nradov »

thedangler wrote: post #26

In a world where peoples home might be taken away because interest go up because oil prices is nuts.

Interest rates change for all sorts of reasons. People who take out variable rate home mortgages are always gambling. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#124

Post by buckle8017 »

mkoubaa wrote: post #86
hiddencost wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean given that our secretary of defense has a Deus Vult tattoo... and this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/us-israel-iran... I think we might be the fanatics starting a religious war.

I think the parent comment was referring to the same fanatics you are

Pretty sure he was talking about Israel.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#125

Post by mrks_hy »

yodelshady wrote: post #108
Chyzwar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Levelized Cost of Energy for solar is 30-60$ and 100-200$ for nuclear. In the case of Spain, it is cheaper to build more energy lines with Morocco and battery storage than to use nuclear. Spain already has some of the cheapest energy in Europe thanks to renewables. In the case of Germany, nuclear makes sense, but it is not clear where you would buy fuel for it, It might still be a supply chain risk since Russia and K…

Levelised Cost of Energy is the highest, in the entire developed world , in the UK, which has enough wind and solar installed to entirely meet needs today. It is NOT cheap, it is cheap for sellers , because they account on the basis of a MWh being equally useful all the time. It isn't. There are TWh-scale shortfalls in winter because, and a medieval peasant understood this, a shortage of ambient energy is what winter…

Can you please source and explain your claims? They don't match my understanding.

For example:

> Levelised Cost of Energy is the highest, in the entire developed world, in the UK, which has enough wind and solar installed to entirely meet needs today.

Do you mean cost per country (not levelized?)? Even then, UK energy is not the most expensive.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#126

Post by actionfromafar »

KaiserPro wrote: post #122
tfourb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh than wind + battery in Denmark, which also has excellent links to reliable hydropower from Norway and Sweden? Especially when your greatest external security threat is Russia which has openly threatened targeting nuclear reactors of a country they are trying to invade? Not to speak of the inconvenient fact that Uranium is not a resou…

> Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh than wind + battery in Denmark Strategic mix. I'm not saying its a good or bad idea, but nuclear can be used as a tool with batteries to make wind much more reliable. urianium sourcing can be an issue, but sadly so are batteries. (granted nuclear fuel is changed more often)

Nuclear is a strategic drone target first and foremost. It's harder to take out renewables and batteries because they are more distributed.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#127

Post by KaiserPro »

giantg2 wrote: post #121
adrian_b wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dependencies needed for the replacement of equipment having a lifetime of many decades are infinitely less dangerous than the dependencies for consumables like fuel. For critical minerals and metals it is easy to stockpile them to have a buffer sufficient for many years of infrastructure replacement. Such dependencies may remain a problem during a war, when the infrastructure could be destroyed, but in normal tim…

I'm not sure the stockpiling you mention will work the way you propose. We already stockpile oil, yet we still see price shocks. Stockpiling metals can still lead to price shocks due to reluctance to release them and the need to eventually replenish them. We also stockpile foods and medications, and that doesn't provide price stability.

Yes, but you are missing the critical bit.

Food is a constant need, and you can't exist for long without it.

Sure we need to increase battery sotrage, but in ~5 years time, it'll be maintainance, assuming the correct adoption rate. So yes we will still _need_ batteries, but we don't need a constant supply of new batteries to keep the lights on.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#128

Post by defrost »

anovikov wrote: post #110
ryukafalz wrote: post #44

As someone who's been pushing for renewables for quite a while now it's dismaying that it's taken a war to accelerate this push, but I'm glad to see that it's happening at least. It's doubly dismaying that my own country (US) is still doubling down on fossil fuels despite everything. The concern about a new dependency on China is real, but renewables do have the advantage that once you have the infrastructure in plac…

But why does US need any of that? It's a massive exporter of fossil fuels and will be much richer as a result (but yes just as every other way of getting richer, it will also increase inequality).

"Oils ain't Oils" - old motor oil company slogan from the 1980s.

What the US exports isn't "car ready" - most primary oil sources are heavily biased one way or the other (heavy, sweet, light, etc) and the useful end product is blended.

It's not straightforward for the US to get high on it's own supply and even what it delivers to others is less useful to thse others when other non-US sources aren't readily available to blend in.

Also ... using sequestered carbon has been increasing the insulation factor of our common atmosphere, left unchecked (ie. stopping the use of fossil fuels) is a major problem for the coming century.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#129

Post by phtrivier »

> China has, however, been relatively insulated from the crisis due to its ample emergency oil reserves and high rate of electrification, with EVs representing more than half of its domestic new car sales and its grid more than 50% powered by renewable energy sources. In the U.S., by comparison, EVs are less than 10% of the market, while renewable power is around a quarter of the nation's electricity generation.

My favorite quote from "Studio 60 on the Sunset Street" (an antique show from the late 2000s) is from the CEO of a fictional media conglomerates, coming back from a trip to Macau with disbelief:

"Tell you kids to learn Mandarin."

The USA is either handing the future on a plate to the Chinese Empire ; or acting like a "chaos monkey" in an anti fragile system, giving just enough scares to the rest of the world to get their act together.

Maybe climate change could not do that because of the long timescale and unpalpability of the issues.

Maybe the first few oil shocks were not enough because you could hope for better days.

Maybe market pressure was not enough because incumbents fossil fuel industries could always buy the right élections to set up the right incentives ; and also, people don't want to change.

Maybe the perfect storm will nudge it ?

That, or we'll just have to speak Mandarin. They do that in Firefly, after all..

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#130

Post by graemep »

ryukafalz wrote: post #44

As someone who's been pushing for renewables for quite a while now it's dismaying that it's taken a war to accelerate this push, but I'm glad to see that it's happening at least. It's doubly dismaying that my own country (US) is still doubling down on fossil fuels despite everything. The concern about a new dependency on China is real, but renewables do have the advantage that once you have the infrastructure in plac…

> renewables do have the advantage that once you have the infrastructure in place it keeps working without continuously importing fuel

There are issues if the infrastructure is network accessible and is updatable. The consumer end of it (e.g. home solar) is often dependent on apps etc. and is very vulnerable. I hope (probably optimistically) that critical systems are air gapped.

Its always been obvious to me that we should have a variety or energy sources for security and its complacent to think otherwise. Over-reliance on an unstable region makes it all the worse.

Post reply on HN