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

261–270 of 474 posts

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

#261

Post by tfourb »

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)

> Strategic mix

Nuclear doesn't vibe well with a grid that is supposed to be dominated by renewable electricity generation. You can't simply increase or decrease nuclear generation and even if you could, it would make the economics even worse, if you wouldn't keep their utilization at maximum capacity.

So if nuclear is supposed to have a "strategic" effect on your electricity mix, you have a substantial (20-40%) block of your electricity generation that is essentially static. That in turn requires you to have static demand. But static demand is poison for a renewable generation. You actually want demand to be highly dynamic via grid-tied batteries and dynamic loads (i.e. electric car charging, scheduled appliances and heating, cost-dependent production) so that it can be tailored to supply and keep the grid stable.

> 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.

I doubt that this is a requirement for Denmark. There is tremendous hydro capacity in northern Scandinavia and the country is tied into the EU and UK grid.

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

#262

Post by tencentshill »

nolist_policy wrote: post #244
Gravityloss wrote: post #237

It feels so slow. I would like to have an electric car or e-bike. I live in a building that is part of a housing company that has many owners (most of them people living here). It is slow to decide and implement renovation, and the pipeline is basically full for a few years. We might get car charging infrastructure only a few years down the line. Maybe a bike shed for e-bike charging a year after that? What happened…

With e bikes you can charge the battery in your home.

Then we need regulation to make sure every ebike and scooter sold is safe to charge without exploding. No cheap batteries.

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

#263

Post by nandomrumber »

Tostino wrote: post #250
slashdev wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may or may not be true. But it won't stay in the ground as long as there is money to be made by extracting and consuming it. Right now all that's happening is the US is extracting that natural gas, and the middle east extracting that oil, and Europe is importing it. Which pollutes more and costs more. Just develop your domestic supplies. I don't follow your logic.

That is because that money is allowed to be made by externalizing the cost to future generations. People hate migrants enough as it is. Climate crisis migrations will make these "little" war migrations seem quaint.

> That is because that money is allowed to be made by externalizing the cost to future generations.

I don’t understand why you wrote this in response to the comment you replied to.

No matter which way you slice it, the UK and Europe using the oil from wells physically closer to them has to be less energy intensive that shipping oil / gas from far away.

What bearing does externalising anything have on that fact.

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

#264

Post by nandomrumber »

Scarblac wrote: post #209
slashdev wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Europe should resume drilling in the North Sea and Groningen if they have exploitable reserves there. Europe depends on energy imports and that won't change in our lifetimes (I'm in my early forties, so at least in my lifetime.) They should take advantage of whatever resources they have. I'm guessing you think otherwise? Why? Do you think the energy transition will be faster? What makes you think that?

Because the continued survival of civilization depends on leaving fossil fuel in the ground. If the transition isn't fast enough then we will have horrible, lethal shortages, but that's still better than the worst climate scenarios.

You’re willing to sacrifice the lives of at least some poor people who exist now, or are likely to exist in the near future, for a theory that is unfalsifiable.

That’s not since.

That’s brainwashing, and it’s not even good brainwashing.

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

#265

Post by _alternator_ »

anovikov wrote: post #142
_alternator_ wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that high oil prices are good for America is one of the most ridiculous ideas being pushed right now. Yes, on a trade deficit front, it slightly reduces the net amount of money leaving. But we are also the world’s largest consumer of oil, and it literally powers every part of our economy. Saying that America is better off with high gas prices is like saying Americans will eat more beef if the price of be…

Think of it this way: less trade deficit means more imports that come through without causing extra damage. It means more cheap products of all kinds for everyone. And yes this is exactly how petrostates work. I wonder why is it surprising. Sure their population also pays higher prices for gas at the pump when the oil goes up, but they massively win in every other way. It's simply a long, embedded stereotype of "high…

The difference between the US and a petrostate is that the US is rich because we use gas, not because we make gas. Put differently, petrostate economies rely upon on oil revenues; we rely on the actual product at every stage in our economy.

There is a segment of our economy that does benefit from oil revenues, but the vast majority of our economic output involves oil consumption.

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

#266

Post by esperent »

davedx wrote: post #109
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…

I've been arguing with Europeans on twitter (including an environmental scientist) who believe this war shows we need to resume drilling in the North Sea and Groningen. It feels like this collective insanity will never end

I wish there was somewhere I could talk about world affairs and European affairs with reasonable people, the way I can talk about tech on HN. But anywhere I've tried - Twitter, r/europe or any smaller subs I've found are just filled with reactionaries trying to stir up hate for whatever reasons they have. There are reasonable voices there, people who are capable of actual conversation, but they're just drowned out. I used to comfort myself by thinking they must all be 14 year olds, or Russian bots, or whatever, and some probably are, but now I'm convinced the large majority are just hate filled adults who've gotten stuck on Twitter, Facebook, reddit etc. and literally spend all their time there basically shouting as if they were lunatics on a street corner.

I might pass by but I wouldn't stand and listen to an angry man on a street corner, and I definitely wouldn't try and have a conversation nearby (or with) them. So why would I expect that to work on Twitter?

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

#267

Post by markus_zhang »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #80
markus_zhang wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the oil industry is laughing their ass off nowadays. They can sell at such a premium. Inflation? YP.

It’s just pulling forward future gains while shrinking the time horizon, if the world speeds the transition to renewables and electrification from this. Short term gain for faster irrelevance. Oil to $200/barrel please, as long as possible, same with LNG. Edit: Iran attack wipes out 17% of Qatar’s LNG capacity for up to five years, QatarEnergy CEO says - https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2026/03/19/iran-attack-...…

If you tell me I can make 10 million bucks this year, with the penalty of not making anything for the rest of my life, I guess I don’t mind?

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

#268

Post by nandomrumber »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #219
slashdev wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about electricity, so I assume your answer is directed to the natural gas fields at Groningen. The EU imports a lot of natural gas. Don't you think it would be better to have a domestic supply? It's better for the environment too. Heck right now, Europe is still burning coal (and worse yet - lignite coal) for electricity. Natural gas would be a huge improvement on that. Note that drilling for oil in th…

No, everything can move to electricity, China is doing it, Europe can too. You are free to your opinion, but the facts and evidence are clear. If you would like an hour of time with an expert from Ember Energy to explain this, happy to pay for that hour of time for you to update your priors and mental model on the topic of Europe's energy transition trajectory. > Note that drilling for oil in the North Sea is a compl…

> Why did they ban combustion vehicles? Because they have no domestic fossil fuel supplies and the import cost was crushing them

Your closing argument is that some far away land with no nat gas / oil reserves of their own isn’t convincing anyone with nat gas / oil reserves of their own.

Europeans need inexpensive fuels to power their existing fleet or vehicles now.

Ethiopia’s plan doesn’t generalise.

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

#269

Post by toomuchtodo »

nandomrumber wrote: post #268
toomuchtodo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, everything can move to electricity, China is doing it, Europe can too. You are free to your opinion, but the facts and evidence are clear. If you would like an hour of time with an expert from Ember Energy to explain this, happy to pay for that hour of time for you to update your priors and mental model on the topic of Europe's energy transition trajectory. > Note that drilling for oil in the North Sea is a compl…

> Why did they ban combustion vehicles? Because they have no domestic fossil fuel supplies and the import cost was crushing them Your closing argument is that some far away land with no nat gas / oil reserves of their own isn’t convincing anyone with nat gas / oil reserves of their own. Europeans need inexpensive fuels to power their existing fleet or vehicles now . Ethiopia’s plan doesn’t generalise.

Europe has no choice but to lean into low carbon generation and EVs now, their hand is forced by geopolitical energy events outside of their control. These options are objectively cheaper than attempting to develop new domestic fossil resources.

China will build every cheap EV Europe will buy if the EU cannot build them fast enough (citations on EU EV sales are in my comment you replied to), so buy them or experience economic pain and ongoing energy inflation from choosing to continue to burn fossil fuels for energy. These are straightforward choices to make. The clean energy path is the cheaper path, based on all available data as of this comment.

(from your profile, "They force us to use extremely expensive renewable energy to run our energy efficient extremely disposable appliances," so I'm unsure how effective facts and data will be in this discussion, but I am trying very hard to share the relevant facts as a shared foundation to discuss from)

Citations:

Germany's Solar Boom Eases Power Costs as Gas Price Jumps - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47323028 - March 2026

Lazard LCOE+ 2025 [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47184980 - March 2026

Wind power slashed 4.6B euros off electricity bills in Spain last year - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46622463 - January 2026

France's 2024 Power Grid Was 95% Fossil Free as Nuclear, Renewables Jumped - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42770556 - January 2025

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

#270

Post by pydry »

mono442 wrote: post #94
defrost wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-battery-storage-map-of-austr...

That's not much. Projects listed there can't store energy for winter needs.

Neither could French nuclear plants when they were turned off for weeks at a time for emergency maintenance.

So, France fired up the gas.

5x cheaper electricity, on the other hand, makes power-to-gas economic, which can smooth out seasonal variations in a carbon neutral way.

Post reply on HN