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

271–280 of 474 posts

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

#271

Post by tfourb »

dncornholio wrote: post #102
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…

Wind + Battery doesn't exist. Wind and solar renewables are dependent on natural gas plants at this moment. This is why nuclear is still a consideration, it's more "green" then most "green" energy.

Wind and solar are not "dependent" on natural gas plants. You can observe this quite well by simply building a wind or solar plant, connect a battery and a load. It works and it works well.

Many national grids do not have enough renewable generation capacity to satisfy 100% demand at all times yet. When renewable generation is not sufficient, the difference is made up with generation from fossil-fueled thermal plants. But the existence of thermal power plants shouldn't be confused with any form of technical reliance on them. 100% renewable grids are inherently possible. If only, because you can simply enlarge grids geographically to the point that wind and solar production averages out. In combination with planned overcapacity (you can simply "switch off" wind and solar if you don't need generation), you strictly speaking don't even need batteries. It's just much more economical.

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

#272

Post by tac19 »

empyrrhicist wrote: post #258
tac19 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> climate change is a bigger issue - so why can't we focus on it? What it needed was for strong left-wing people to stand up and denounce the distraction. To claim loud and proudly that transgender issues were not important when compared to climate change. To refocus the public on climate change and take the wind out of the fringe issue. Instead, we took to the street for BLM, when it wasn't an important issue, when…

There's a Guante lyric I really like about this topic that I think highlights how I feel about your argument: "Those who turn hoses on water protеctors Are those who cage "Stop Cop City" protеstors And enforce the brutality of the border Same ones who enforce bans on drag performers Same ones who enforce bans On crossing state lines for abortions Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses Are the s…

> 1. Pivoting to a totally different issue

No, i am not. It's the exact same issue. If you honestly believe that climate change is an existential crisis, then ALL other issues are by definition less important. That might be difficult to accept, because it feels like saying other issues aren't important. But that's not what i'm saying at all.

What i'm saying is, if something is about to destroy the entire world, then every other concern is a distraction. What does it matter what bathrooms we use, or if the police are using violence too much, etc?

Our actions speak to people who don't believe that climate change is real. Every time we take to the streets for ANY OTHER ISSUE, we re-affirm their belief that climate change isn't something to worry about.

You are showing exactly why we have been less effective at convincing people than we could have been. Because even you are diminishing the importance of climate change. Why should "they" give up any freedom, or luxury, in the name of climate change, if we give ourselves permission to assemble in public during a pandemic for a BLM protest, that let's face it, accomplished little.

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

#273

Post by myrmidon »

nandomrumber wrote: post #256
davidw wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well "Europeans on Twitter" are probably the kind of people who look at the owner of the site posting about a homeland for white people and that kind of thing and aren't bothered too much by it.

[flagged]

> Countries that can be oil independent definitely should do that.

This does not necessarily follow.

Doubling down on becoming oil independent might have a massive price because the required investments into extraction and refining industry could also be spent on renewables.

Furthermore, we already see renewables outcompeting fossils on price/kWh, so ending up in a really inefficient sunk-cost pit is pretty likely, with all the refinery investments not even paying back their cost because a conflict now does not guarantee that fossil prices/demand will stay high.

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

#274

Post by nandomrumber »

slashdev wrote: post #259
toomuchtodo wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done my best to educate with facts and citations. Appreciate the discussion regardless. My offer stands to pay for you to talk to a subject matter expert. Edit (to respond to your edit): > Global consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas all rose in 2025. We've not even peaked yet. Do you think global LNG consumption will peak considering a material amount of production has been taken offline for the next five y…

We're making great progress, this is true. But we're also still increasing our consumption of fossil fuels. Let's put a number on it. When do you think we reach 50% of today's consumption of fossil fuels? IEA seems to think it continues to grow until 2050. https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/iea-energy-outlook-2025-9.69... If that's true, I don't think we reach 50% of current levels by 2100. That's my very non-scientific…

Those people, and the world in general, would be better off burning natural gas for heating and cooking, rather than wood.

But environmentalists in the west deny them that option because they don’t give a fuck about poor people, they can just freeze in the dark or choke on the fumes of whatever plant fibres / dung they can scavenge from the local environment.

I don’t know how else to frame it.

I spent, more like wasted, two decades of my live in the cult of environmentalism, and they literally just out and say it: some people are going to die in the transition away from fossil fuels, oh well.

That’s easy to say when it’s not you who’s going to freeze in the dark.

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

#275

Post by abustamam »

Mashimo wrote: post #192
abustamam wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

I agree that that's _why_ they have a large carbon footprint, no company is just burning fossil fuels for fun. But it doesn't change a) the fact that they do have a large carbon footprint, and b) entire cities could ban gas cars and everyone could take public transit and it still wouldn't make a dent in the global carbon footprint.

As I think you're alluding to over-consumerism as a cause of companies having a large carbon footprint, that's part of it. But unless everyone just stops consuming, it's not gonna change anything. If it were legislated that big companies needed to reduce their carbon footprint by X% by Y date I think that would be the most effective, short term at least.

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

I don't know why it'd be negative. Zero or neutral, at best, but not negative. Negative would entail you're somehow removing CO2 from the environment.

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

#276

Post by abustamam »

Qem wrote: post #208
johnny_canuck wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole "reduce your carbon footprint PSA" was just a ruse. It is especially true in the context of this war when the US is attacking oil infrastructure which is causing catastrophic environmental damage: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/world/middleeast/iran-oil... Similarly related to the paper straw meme that has been circulating the last while.

Also: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/30/carbon-footpri...

Yikes. I never really thought about the environmental impacts of war mainly because no one seems to talk about it.

Now that I know about it, it just infuriates me that anyone could even criticize any individual person's usage of fossil fuels.

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

#277

Post by abustamam »

johnny_canuck wrote: post #178
abustamam wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The whole "reduce your carbon footprint PSA" was just a ruse. It is especially true in the context of this war when the US is attacking oil infrastructure which is causing catastrophic environmental damage: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/world/middleeast/iran-oil... Similarly related to the paper straw meme that has been circulating the last while.

Ugh don't get me started on paper straws! At least EVs are a cool way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, however ineffective it may be at scale. But nobody likes paper straws.

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

#278

Post by randerson »

slashdev wrote: post #221
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…

I agree that it can. I won't live to see it, and I hope I live 50 years more. You're living in a fantasy world that doesn't exist. Global consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas all rose in 2025. We've not even peaked yet.[1] [1] https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/2025/12/record-fossi...

Doesn't the world only have about 50 years [0] worth of oil remaining in the ground? Climate change and war aside, it seems like that should be a major reason to accelerate the change to renewables.

[0] https://www.worldometers.info/oil/

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

#279

Post by tfourb »

mrmlz wrote: post #57
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…

As a Swede i'd like to cut the cord to Denmark/Germany. That would greatly reduce our electricity costs in south/mid Sweden. Let them enjoy their "cheap" wind and battery solution.

You export more to Norway + Finnland than to Denmark + Germany: https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subje...

And my guess would be that it would be much more expensive for you to build out (and hold in reserve) enough generation capacity to satisfy your theoretical peak demand than it costs to have interconnected grids and a large efficient market, even if you are a net exporter.

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

#280

Post by empyrrhicist »

tac19 wrote: post #272
empyrrhicist wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a Guante lyric I really like about this topic that I think highlights how I feel about your argument: "Those who turn hoses on water protеctors Are those who cage "Stop Cop City" protеstors And enforce the brutality of the border Same ones who enforce bans on drag performers Same ones who enforce bans On crossing state lines for abortions Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses Are the s…

> 1. Pivoting to a totally different issue No, i am not. It's the exact same issue. If you honestly believe that climate change is an existential crisis, then ALL other issues are by definition less important. That might be difficult to accept, because it feels like saying other issues aren't important. But that's not what i'm saying at all. What i'm saying is, if something is about to destroy the entire world, then…

> No, i am not. It's the exact same issue. If you honestly believe that climate change is an existential crisis, then ALL other issues are by definition less important.

You're using a very superficial argument and ignoring several of my points. If your literal home is on fire, is putting it out or running to safety less important than climate change? If you need to change an entire economic system to solve climate change, can you cavalierly ignore inconvenient members of that system that might be needed for a sufficiently motivated coalition? If you're worried about distractions, how can you blame the victims instead of the people committing the distraction?

> What does it matter what bathrooms we use

It ISNT about the bathrooms - that's the propaganda framing that you seem to have uncritically accepted. It's about random people trying to live their lives, and being denied housing and employment because of who they are. It's about the fact that we're talking about these people ONLY because of the propaganda machine.

> if the police are using violence too much

Must be nice that you apparently don't face the sharp end of this. To avoid triggering you with the "P" word, I'd suggest that your life experience is not universal and you should consider trying to understand a little bit about other peoples' lives.

> Our actions speak to people who don't believe that climate change is real.

And ignoring our values isn't going to convince those people, and those people will still think we're a bunch of woke idiots because their media has captured their minds.

> Every time we take to the streets for ANY OTHER ISSUE, we re-affirm their belief that climate change isn't something to worry about.

[all sorts of citations needed for unsupported reasoning]

Post reply on HN