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

Post by baq » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 2:10 PM UTC

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…

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 2:11 PM UTC

anovikov wrote: post #131

standeven wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burning fossil fuels also raises the global temperature, reduces air quality, and people still have to pay more at the pump.

But US mostly wins from global warming relatively, right? I mean, it's going to suffer less than others (except EU), for geographical reasons, thus winning. I don't think global warming is a concern for US at all (some places sure, Florida will be royally fucked, but not most places).

Post by lm28469 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 2:12 PM UTC

lukan wrote: post #103

lm28469 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It actually works pretty well As long as you don't look at the receipts yes, technically it works very well, in every other aspect it's a massive waste of resource and money.

The war in itself? For sure, but if a million dollar rocket saves a billion dollar radar system against a 50.000 drone, it still seems working as intended.

Post by krapp » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 2:13 PM UTC

manyaoman wrote: post #141

megous wrote: post #43

Anyone has any respect left for US Americans after they elected this? This is so ridiculous at so many levels: Not US hollywood culture or whatever Americans culturally exported in the past all around the world, but this will forever represent US Americans in my mind. That this is how they overall want to be seen and represented as all around the world, seemingly: “Israel, out of anger for what has taken place in the…

The thing is that back in 2024 Kamala didn't exactly come across as a much better option, although in hindsight she likely would have been.

Post by flir » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 2:15 PM UTC

mrks_hy wrote: post #125

yodelshady wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.