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

#331

Post by empyrrhicist » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 6:55 PM UTC

lelanthran wrote: post #326

empyrrhicist wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for example the fight to allow transgender people to use whatever bathroom they choose Ugh, I'm going to regret commenting here, but it really seems like this obsession is almost entirely on the right wing. In the US, the centrist Dems have been banging the appeasement drum for my entire political life, and it's gotten us nowhere. Like... the right isn't going to wake up and start caring about climate change if eve…

> In my state, we removed protections for housing and employment discrimination against trans people because... one trans athlete existed? I think you're sort of proving the parent's point - when you're in an existential fight, is it really that important that you use the limited attention of the public to fight for the rights of a single person? Trans rights ain't even that popular; most people are okay with "you th…

I made my position clear in other comments, so I'll leave it at that. I do not find your arguments persuasive.

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

#332

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 7:03 PM UTC

pibaker wrote: post #18

I wonder where the gulf states are going to end up. They have tried hard to build economies that aren't just fossil fuel exports. Tourism, trade, finance, luxury living for rich foreigners… but everything they have tried is contingent on peace in the region. I doubt foreigners are looking forward to layovers in Dubai now there are Iranian drones heading their way. Maybe future travelers will not see two trunkless leg…

[deleted]

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

#333

Post by KaiserPro » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 7:06 PM UTC

tfourb wrote: post #319

KaiserPro wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. you totally can, and for keeping the grid stable, they are absolutely grand. But to your point, pan continental links are not that practical for making up ~30% of a country's peak demand. > you have a substantial (20-40%) block of your el…

> The problem spain needs to overcome is the morning and evening peaks. From memory it's something like 1-2 gigawatts (but it could be more.) The EU has collectively added 27 Gwh of battery capacity in 2025 alone. If Spain only needs anything close to 2 GW of load for around 2 hours in the morning and evening each, this seems to be inherently achievable. > you totally can, and for keeping the grid stable, they are ab…

> Nuclear plants can load follow at about 5% of their rated capacity per minute. This is glacial in the world of electricity.

which is why batteries are really great. We have couple of batteries that are 180 and 300gwh, which can turn on frighteningly quick. The iberian market is really young at the moment for batteries, they have a way to go before batteries make a dent in prices (which is great for us)

The spanish grid has about 16% nuclear: https://www.ree.es/en/datos/todate Now spain's grid usually has a whole bunch of solar sites in curtailment, which means they can turn on power fairly quickly. Which is where batteries come in, as the curtailment could be flowing into batteries, and that sweet sweet energy sold at a stonking profit in the evening.

But!

Denmark isn't the spanish grid. They have less predictability, so need bigger storage to account for the variability of wind.

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

#334

Post by markus_zhang » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #285

markus_zhang wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Would you have made it anyway? Can we stop you? Does it cause a negative externality that will be more rapidly diminished if you pull forward this gain? Consider it a premium paid by fossil fuel consumers to encourage a more rapid transition from fossil fuels by pushing pain into the energy market for the next half decade. Congrats to those who won the lotto, enjoy your luck.

Eh, definitely not me, still a salary slave. But yeah kudos to whoever won the oil lottery.

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

#335

Post by nandomrumber » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 7:45 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #269

nandomrumber wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Europe has no choice

I’ve been following you for 13 years in this site, and I really expect more intellectually honest comments from you.

You’re trying to tell us that developing new battery technology, new storage technology, deploying more wind / solar and replacing the entire European vehicle fleet, is cheaper than building new oil / gas infrastructure.

I’m not buying it.

Regarding the comment in my profile, I’ve done warranty repair work on home appliances. Some manufacturers have moved to assembly methods that render appliances uneconomical to repair, or impractical. Also, in Australia, electricity price increases have been double or triple that of general inflation.

The comment in my profile is an objective assessment of the facts, not an ideological screed.

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

#336

Post by Mashimo » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 7:50 PM UTC

abustamam wrote: post #275

Mashimo wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 carb…

Oh my bad, I used negative wrong.

I mean if I buy a car (and never drive it) and have a phone, ipad and computer that I never use. Is it not ME who has a huge carbon footprint?

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

#337

Post by nandomrumber » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 7:51 PM UTC

myrmidon wrote: post #288

nandomrumber wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. What exactly do you mean with "unfalsifiable"? We actually measure atmospheric CO2, sea level and temperature; that's plenty falsifiability to me. And the greenhouse effect itself is not even in question. Fossil emissions are sacrificing people not just fro…

Climate science wants us to ignore the geological record and ignore geological processes.

A cubic kilometre of lava at 1200 degrees C is enough energy for thirty (30!) hurricanes.

It’s entirely possible that sea temperature rise is a result of geologic processes at or near the sea bed, and when you warm a liquid dissolved gasses are liberated.

But climate science wants us to ignore all that and place the blame entirely on human caused CO2 emissions and cow farts, while we are literally living through and ice age.

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

#338

Post by asmsecnd » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 7:54 PM UTC

empyrrhicist wrote: post #217

tac19 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It feels like this collective insanity will never end They simply do not believe that the consequences will be as bad as the models predict. And a lot of trust and good will has been expended on social issues, for example the fight to allow transgender people to use whatever bathroom they choose, or to promote childhood reassignment surgery, etc. As a strategic decision, we have taken our eye off the ball, climate…

> for example the fight to allow transgender people to use whatever bathroom they choose Ugh, I'm going to regret commenting here, but it really seems like this obsession is almost entirely on the right wing. In the US, the centrist Dems have been banging the appeasement drum for my entire political life, and it's gotten us nowhere. Like... the right isn't going to wake up and start caring about climate change if eve…

In the US, it was the left who decided to push gender identity into law and policy, with no regard to the adverse consequences of doing so. That the right decided to capitalize on this for political reasons is just them taking an opportunity that was basically handed to them on a plate.

Interestingly it's a bit different in the UK. Both the main left and right parties had been promoting gender identity based policy for years, and it was only though the dedicated efforts of feminists who pointed out all the problems with this, and particularly the negative impacts on women and girls, that it recently started to be reversed.

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

#339

Post by nandomrumber » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 7:56 PM UTC

Tostino wrote: post #296

nandomrumber wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> long-term climate cost of burning that newly available fuel is still being passed on to the future.

That’s not science.

That’s wishful thinking.

We can’t actually know the long term climate-costs of burning fossil fuels.

It’s unfalsifiable.

We don’t have a second identical Earth we can use as a control.

Expending the fossil fuel supply today (months) reduces the impact of global oil / gas shocks to people suffering high prices today.

Waiting for your team to invent new battery and storage technology, and littering the countryside with wind turbines and replacing the entire existing vehicle fleet does nothing to help people now.

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

#340

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 7:58 PM UTC

0dayz wrote: post #321

cpursley wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, ho…

It has around 42-77% success rate according to Ukraine themselves against specifically Iskander 9M723 and KN-23. And your comment makes 0 sense considering S-400 was more designed against aircrafts and cruise missiles than ballistic missiles.

And that success rate comes after significant improvements to the Russian weapons and finesse. They were much less effective early in the war.

Cat and mouse is always a factor in war. The patriot wasn't very good when it was first introduced and took some refining to become the gold standard, which it still is.

It still works very well against planes too, reaching out and downing EWACS aircraft at the edge of it's range.

They were neither designed nor expected to have 100% defense rate, but 50% is lower than expected. 75% isn't great either.