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

191–200 of 474 posts

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

#191

Post by Qem »

duskdozer wrote: post #37
billcube wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It helped on reducing traffic, spending more time with family, favouring local shops... Why we went back still is a mystery for me. Even if it was "working from a coworking space" or anything that was not the downtown open-space.

I remember reading articles about local politicians insisting companies and governments do return to office for no other reason than to have the workers spend money downtown for lunch. Not even implying it, directly stating it.

...and increasing valuation of office real state.

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

#192

Post by Mashimo »

abustamam wrote: post #68
sharemywin wrote: post #10

Wonder how much WFH could help. Seems like during covid demand went way down.

I don't have data but I was always under the impression that consumer use of fossil fuels (ie gas) was a drop in the bucket compared to enterprise use of fossil fuels (shipping trucks/boats/planes, private jets, etc). The whole "reduce your carbon footprint PSA" was just a ruse.

But the companies have a large carbon foodprint to deliver a product or service for the consumer.

When I buy a large SUV / Truck, and never drive it, is that not counted negative towards my carbon foodprint?

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

#193

Post by whacko_quacko »

krapp wrote: post #157
manyaoman wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kamala was always obviously a better option than Trump. Let's not pretend people didn't know who and what Trump was, or that his behavior after 2024 came as a shock to anyone.

A majority thought differently. They knew who Trump was and who Kamala was, and they voted for Trump. That's how it goes in a democracy... Anyways, they're getting what they voted for

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

#194

Post by dmix »

lm28469 wrote: post #155
lukan wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

10+ radars have been destroyed, I'm not sure which ones were "saved" https://abcnews.com/International/us-allied-radar-sites-midd...

That doesn't say 10+ radars have been destroyed. It says radar sites have been attacked 10 times across 7 locations in 6 countries, with some damaged and some destroyed.

This biggest loss was the mobile THAAD radar in Jordan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TPY-2_transportable_radar There's also evidence they hit a building in Saudi Arabia containing a AN/TPY-2 but it's not clear if it was damaged

Plus a couple videos of fixed radomes getting hit by drones

Defending against ballistic missiles is well known to not be perfect, even against Iran's lest sophisticated missiles it's very difficult. But the high end missile systems are worth trying. The main problem is the lack of cheap drone interceptors which has been a blaring siren since Ukraine war started that the US neglected by not treating it as an emergency.

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

#195

Post by rootusrootus »

dboreham wrote: post #173
cpursley wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big story I think is how handily they took out billions of dollars of US radars and that these air defense systems are not up to the task (we actually already knew this from Ukraine, but media worked overtime to ignore this fact). In a way, all this supposedly "superior" US and Israeli tech (at least on the defense side, offense is a different story) has been exposed. I do think focused engineering efforts could…

No serious person believes ballistic missile defense works. This isn't a fringe belief. There was a major movie with this theme released last year.

Isn't this a different thing? I tend to assume when someone is talking about ballistic missile defense, they are thinking of ICBMs. A House of Dynamite is an example of that. But that seems substantially different from the regional missile defense that seems much more effective. Mach 5 is pretty fast, but Mach 25 is considerably faster.

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

#196

Post by rootusrootus »

krapp wrote: post #157
manyaoman wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kamala was always obviously a better option than Trump. Let's not pretend people didn't know who and what Trump was, or that his behavior after 2024 came as a shock to anyone.

I think most people expected Trump Two to be a similar shit show to Trump One. I was no fan, but he was generally popular on the issue of the economy during his first term, and I think a lot of people had the economy as their primary consideration in 2024. Flooding the zone works, they tuned out all the rhetoric as partisan noise.

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

#197

Post by rootusrootus »

whacko_quacko wrote: post #193
krapp wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kamala was always obviously a better option than Trump. Let's not pretend people didn't know who and what Trump was, or that his behavior after 2024 came as a shock to anyone.

A majority thought differently. They knew who Trump was and who Kamala was, and they voted for Trump. That's how it goes in a democracy... Anyways, they're getting what they voted for

Nit: a plurality, not a majority.

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

#198

Post by evolighting »

spacephysics wrote: post #186
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…

Unfortunately much of China’s perverse tactics (they’ve done this in a wide array of industries) is to steal patented tech and trade secrets from companies outside China, subsidize the manufacturing and development etc, then sell their product at an artificially low price which kills the original company and good faith competitors as they cannot compete with the artificially lower prices. Then once the dust settles t…

subsidize ?

no all that shit just not worth that much;

The profit marginsof these industries are ridiculously high, to the point that if you’re willing, you can manufacture many useful, high‑quality products.

only when China could build them, there are real "free" market

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

#199

Post by Mashimo »

thedangler wrote: post #26

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

It would be very hard for me to take a variable rate mortgages, while not having the money to pay for it.

Feels like stressful living.

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

#200

Post by Qem »

giarc wrote: post #55
sharemywin wrote: post #10

Wonder how much WFH could help. Seems like during covid demand went way down.

WFH and the almost 100% shutdown off airline travel at the beginning of the pandemic resulted in nearly 0 change in CO2 emission and levels in the atmosphere. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

Of course we shouldn't expect a couple of years of shutdown to significantly reverse 200 years of man-made atmospheric CO2 accumulation, but surely it would help stop the problem to get worse if the widespread WFH effort were sustained after the pandemic.
Post reply on HN