Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by modo_mario » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

tfourb wrote: post #39

samuel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that easy, and the 2025 blackout good evidence of that. Renewables need a grid that's engineered for them and that require significative investments. Without them, closing power plants (of any kind) is, IMO, nonsensical. Ironically, Spain has plenty of Uranium, but there is an environmental law that doesn't allow its mining. https://alpoma.medium.com/uranium-in-spain-8ef975763257 This country is crazy.

But doesn't nuclear power present a complication when designing a power grid for renewable energy? It is basically very expensive caseload energy that needs permanent demand, when the entire proposition of a renewable-focused grid is that you manage a non-certain production with dynamic demand (via batteries and price-sensitive usage).

Nuclear production doesn't react in seconds but it doesn't need permanent demand as far as I know? What makes you think that?

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

#292

Post by gib444 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 4:12 PM UTC

outime wrote: post #283

gib444 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor train service? (Recent accidents aside) Any areas in particular?

Well, I think that's a bit of an aside but sure: - Track maintenance is horrendous, and it's public knowledge (not that it wasn't known before, it was just hidden) - Many high-speed trains are now running much slower after the accident, and will continue to do so. Also, compensation for delays has been significantly reduced - Some rather important routes (Madrid-Málaga, for example) still have no service after the ac…

Sorry didn't mean to go off on a tangent, it's just I like trains, and Spain (and have an Interrail trip coming up and I was considering including Spain. They are famously Interrail unfriendly though)

I followed the accident but not much news following, so that's really really interesting. I didn't know Madrid-Malaga still has no service, nor that Renfe had set up a bus company!

I haven't been to Madrid for a few years. Sad to hear the Cercanías is so bad these days

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

#293

Post by empyrrhicist » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 4:13 PM UTC

tac19 wrote: post #284

empyrrhicist wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ch…

I didn't ignore any of your points. If your house is on fire, then put it out. But DON'T start a social movement that distracts from climate change. Don't distract everyone by claiming that fire is the most important thing, worthy of gathering during a pandemic about. This isn't about propaganda, well not in the sense you're using it. The argument, which you seem to disagree with, is the importance of focusing on a s…

Your argument basically boils down to "Climate change is the most important thing, so action on any other issue is bad."

I don't see you responding anywhere to the general categories of criticisms I raised:

1. Climate change isn't one thing - it's a systemic problem in a system with lots of problems. 2. It seems ludicrous to assume that suddenly people will listen to us about climate change if we ignore other issues, ESPECIALLY because doing so would make us (or at least, me) moral hypocrites. We haven't even discussed direct causal issues, like political corruption. I honestly think no meaningful action is possible in the US on climate change until we have major reforms of our electoral and media systems - where does that put me in your oversimplified schema? 3. You're completely ignoring my argument about immediate needs. This is actually kind of funny:

> If your house is on fire, then put it out. But DON'T start a social movement that distracts from climate change.

The fire in this metaphor IS a social problem! Putting the fire out IS a social movement!!

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, but either way - here's hoping we can do something meaningful about climate change. Have a good day.

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

#294

Post by xorcist » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 4:14 PM UTC

nandomrumber wrote: post #264

Scarblac wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What exactly is your argument here? That organic chemistry is all wrong and oxidization is unfalsifiable, or that the fossil industry itself is fudging the numbers to make it look life we're oxidizing less organic matter than we think?

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

#295

Post by cpursley » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 4:14 PM UTC

0dayz wrote: post #282

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…

This is not mostly true: Israel's anti air defense works surprisingly well against Iran's attack, the issue has always been 2 things: Who has more missiles to throw? And the Patriot is still top class in it's designed goal: shooting down ballistic and cruise missiles. The second big thing is that no one has designed air defense to take into account effectively slow moving artillery pieces that have the same maneuvera…

The aging Patriot in particular was exposed in Ukraine. You can watch video after video of them failing even against older ballistics - they have basically no chance against hypersonic and other fast ballistics, especially ones with active measures (flares, maneuvering - there was a really wild one from a few weeks back). And there's a number out of this conflict as well. The are still great at shooting down jets, however. Top of class is actually S-4/500, this is basically acknowledged fact by even the Pentagon at this point. I think a lot of people are in denial about this due to a combo of Hollywood narrative and ideological reasons, but the Russians math very good - it's reality. But even so, those are not the right systems for fighting drone attacks - nobody really has it together with that. Both of these are solvable problems, it's just a lot of hard math + piles of money.

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

#296

Post by Tostino » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 4:15 PM UTC

nandomrumber wrote: post #263

Tostino wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Demand isn't static.

Economics 101: if Europe taps new wells, global supply increases. Higher supply drives down prices. Lower prices induce more consumption.

We wouldn't just be cleanly swapping imported fuel for domestic fuel 1:1; we'd be making it cheaper to burn more fossil fuels globally. The marginal emissions saved on shipping are completely wiped out by the net increase in total carbon burned.

The only reason expanding that supply looks like a "win" on a balance sheet today is exactly because the long-term climate cost of burning that newly available fuel is still being passed on to the future.

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

#297

Post by modo_mario » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 4:17 PM UTC

tfourb wrote: post #271

dncornholio wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Many national grids do not have enough renewable generation capacity to satisfy 100% demand at all times yet.

When will it make sense for many countries? Because the difference between peak production and a winter dip for germany in let's say Berlin is enormous.

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

#298

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 4:20 PM UTC

KaiserPro wrote: post #127

giantg2 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A 5 year full adoption rate is not even close to possible.

Once you reach maintenance phase you still have to replace stuff, so just like food you will need a constant supply.

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

#299

Post by outime » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 4:21 PM UTC

gib444 wrote: post #292

outime wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think that's a bit of an aside but sure: - Track maintenance is horrendous, and it's public knowledge (not that it wasn't known before, it was just hidden) - Many high-speed trains are now running much slower after the accident, and will continue to do so. Also, compensation for delays has been significantly reduced - Some rather important routes (Madrid-Málaga, for example) still have no service after the ac…

Sorry didn't mean to go off on a tangent, it's just I like trains, and Spain (and have an Interrail trip coming up and I was considering including Spain. They are famously Interrail unfriendly though) I followed the accident but not much news following, so that's really really interesting. I didn't know Madrid-Malaga still has no service, nor that Renfe had set up a bus company! I haven't been to Madrid for a few yea…

If you ever visit Madrid again, I can say that buses and the metro usually work pretty well (they do get quite crowded at peak hours, but I guess that's the case everywhere) and you probably won't need to rely on Cercanías for typical "tourist" activities. If you're planning to travel between cities though, I'd be a bit wary of long-distance trains!

PS: Roads are becoming worse as well but I've seen worse abroad. Just wanted to point out that infrastructures in the country are decaying quite a bit in general.

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

#300

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 4:22 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #249

giantg2 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the shocks aren't as immediate if you have the infrastructure set up and you are out of the initial adoption phase. Even things like lithium and silver are limited resources, so getting more out of the ground will eventually face scarcity as energy demand has always increased over the long term.

Lithium is one of the most abundant elements on earth. Newer battery chemistries don't use lithium. By the time we use enough energy to run out of all the elements we could make batteries with, we're likely to be at the "cheap asteroid mining" level of technological development.

Abundant doesn't mean unlimited, nor does it mean economical or environmentally friendly to access. The point is that most countries would need to import metals and minerals critical to renewable energy.