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

#431

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 12:47 PM UTC

esperent wrote: post #388

no-name-here wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the recommendation. Link: https://reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics And its sister sub NeutralNews for news article discussion (same rules): https://reddit.com/r/NeutralNews Both subs allow users to submit new posts and comments (but spend 2 minutes checking out the rules first).

Had a browse around and these look good, although very US focused (standard for Reddit though). However, on every thread I checked, about 70% of comments are deleted. That means that the noise is still there, but the mods are having to work nonstop to fight it and no doubt introducing their own bias as they do so. I wish them luck and I'll keep checking these places out but I can't help but feel that by the time you'…

[deleted]

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

#432

Post by Jensson » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 12:51 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #425

lelanthran wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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? Literally conservatives did that. THEY made this focus of the debate. Democrats reaction do not even matter here. It is ultimately irrelevant, because people like you then obsess over imaginary democrats posi…

Conservatives focus on the points that splinters the liberals, and vice versa the liberals try to focus on points that splinters the conservatives. Liberals are very split on the trans issue, so it makes sense to focus on that.

It was a bad move to put themselves in such a position that they can't defend when conservatives attacks it, that was moving too fast and therefore we ended up with a conservative government.

You can say it was conservative that is to blame since they used this vulnerability of the liberals position, but you can also say that it was the liberals fault for doing things that is unpopular with a large part of their supporters so they are now in a vulnerable spot.

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

#433

Post by Jensson » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 12:57 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #207

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…

The attention to those fringe issues is brought by those conservatives and lobbyists etc who explicitly want to distract and divide attention from climate change and renewables. It's strongly my opinion that there are far fewer people championing 'wokeness' than there are 'getting outraged by it's pervasiveness'. Mainly for the fact that all media like to seize upon controversy, thus turning minor fringe issues into…

> It's strongly my opinion that there are far fewer people championing 'wokeness' than there are 'getting outraged by it's pervasiveness'. Mainly for the fact that all media like to seize upon controversy, thus turning minor fringe issues into multiple days in a row of front page headline items.

You fight this by keeping your own ranks in check. The right condemns nazis and racists, so you wont find any open racists and nazis in their ranks. The left doesn't do the same, so they leave themselves open to attacks based on having bad apples in their ranks.

You could argue the right is still worse, but you don't decide that the voters decide, so you have to clean up the ranks until the voters are happy with what you present, otherwise you leave yourself open to attack like this.

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

#434

Post by tfourb » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 1:04 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #406

tfourb wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nuclear reactor can load-follow (increase or decrease their output) by up to 5% of their rated capacity per minute in normal operation: https://snetp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SNETP-Factsheet-... For power plants, this is glacial. A power grid has to balanced perfectly on a sub-second level. Also, you can only do this down to about 50% of rated capacity. Below that you have to switch it off completely. If you c…

> If you combine this with renewable generation, it all falls apart Rubbish. Only true if the renewable generation is poorly integrated. Solar plus batteries can provide synthetic inertia if the incentives/regulations are correctly designed. Australia has been adding oodles of solar, and they have been doing it surprisingly well. Nuclear can load follow, within limitations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=362547…

> Solar plus batteries can provide synthetic inertia if the incentives/regulations are correctly designed.

Yes, but why build nuclear at all, if you are already building PV + batteries? Nuclear is much more expensive than that combination. And if you add nuclear capacity on a level that actually matters (i.e. 30%+ of peak load), you run into real integration problems.

As I've written elsewhere, a toke nuclear program can make sense if you want to keep the industrial base, institutional knowledge and expertise around, i.e. to guarantee independent access to nuclear weapons. But it is ludicrous to make nuclear a cornerstone of your energy policy. Not even China is expanding its share of nuclear in total energy generation. They keep it around as a strategic asset, but a subsidized one.

For countries like Denmark and Spain I'd be pulling my hair out if my government would start throwing money into the money pit that is nuclear power (and it is inevitably is government money, because no nuclear power plant has ever been built without government subsidies and/or price guarantees).

> Nuclear can load follow, within limitations

Yes, but it makes zero economic sense to do so. Nuclear is multiple times more expensive per kwh than PV + batteries, even if you run it at max capacity continuously. If you require nuclear to load follow on a regular basis, not a single reactor will ever be built again.

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

#435

Post by actionfromafar » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 1:09 PM UTC

00N8 wrote: post #396

actionfromafar wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is a strategic drone target first and foremost. It's harder to take out renewables and batteries because they are more distributed.

Not really - for either system, the transformer substations are the part that's vulnerable to drones. Any munition capable of breaching the outer containment structure of a nuclear power plant (let alone impacting the core, dozens to hundreds of meters further inside) is closer to a bunker buster than a drone. What I'd really like to see though is heavy subsidies for synthetic e-fuel plants running a carbon negative…

Ok, nuclear is a strategic missile target. It's harder to take out renewables and batteries because they are more distributed.

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

#436

Post by Spivak » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 1:14 PM UTC

hliyan wrote: post #214

I heard somewhere that there is some sort of evangelical Christian sect in Korea that believes the current US president was sent by God. Not as a positive force, but as a force to end the global status quo (which I suppose they consider unjust). I find this fascinating because the US president's actions so far have: exposed decade-old myths about the rule-based international order, caused the EU to seek more self-rel…

And then there's the theory that the man is also the biblical antichrist which I think fits the prophecy reasonably well. Revelations has some pretty specific details that match up which I find quite entertaining.

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

#437

Post by tfourb » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 1:15 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #420

tfourb wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already battery chemistries available that do not rely on lithium and drastically reduce the usage of other suplly-contrained inputs. Especially for stationary storage (where energy density and weight are not much of a concern) there is a wide array of technologies already available and in development. And as you yourself say: once a battery has been built, it simply exists. There is a very gradual deterior…

These need to be available in enormous quantities, though. Are they? Who produces them? Please tell me that it is not China and that they don't come with a firmware that may or may not have remotely exploitable rootkits. The road from a lab discovery through a working prototype to mass-deployable tech usually takes decades, especially in devices which pack a tremendous amount of energy.

The manufacturing of all modern battery chemistries is dominated by Chinese companies because the Chinese government has strategically invested in production capacity and expertise for more than two decades.

But Chinese companies are running and building production facilities around the world. Leaving the production in Chinese hands is a political choice, not an inevitability.

Also, you can't take batteries away once you have delivered them to the customer. I have a 14kwh battery in my basement. It's built by BYD, a Chinese company. But once installed, I can pull the network cable and air gap it from the internet. Communication with my roof-mounted-solar and grid-tied electrical supply works without external network access, if I deem that an unacceptable risk. I could also do the work required to filter all network request from the battery management system at the router to make sure it can only contact servers from a whitelist, if I want to have access to diagnostics while I'm not at home.

These are all known, manageable risks that are completely within the capability of sovereign states to take care of. But there is literally no government (apparently) that can keep Trump and Netanyahu from fucking over the global fossil energy supply on a whim.

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

#438

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 1:18 PM UTC

mrmlz wrote: post #413

tfourb wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are aware of our different price-markets in sweden right? SE4 is priced at the export prices for Danish wind and German goal - which sucks for Swedes in SE4 (and to some extent SE3). SE4 can eat their own dogfood since they cut the Nuclear Power and are now burning oil instead (Karlshamnsverket).

[deleted]

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

#439

Post by slashdev » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 1:23 PM UTC

kyboren wrote: post #369

Scarblac wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only direct thing we (the Netherlands) can do to prevent carastrophic climate change is to leave fossil fuels on our territory in the ground. Everything else is indirect.

I know this is an unfathomable concept, but to actually "leave fossil fuels [...] in the ground" you have to stop using fossil fuels . Burning fossil fuels someone else refused to leave in the ground means--surprisingly--that fossil fuels weren't left in the ground after all. And it turns out that we actually live on a shared planet with a common atmosphere; sourcing your fuels from abroad does nothing to prevent cli…

Plus you have no control over the standards for extractions (e.g. methane leaks), and shipping it causes more pollution.

They're actually worse off, and they pay more for it instead of creating jobs and keeping the money in their own economy. Meaning less money for e.g. green programs to move away from fossil fuels.

It's just a losing proposition in every way.

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

#440

Post by watwut » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 1:33 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #432

watwut wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Literally conservatives did that. THEY made this focus of the debate. Democrats reaction do not even matter here. It is ultimately irrelevant, because people like you then obsess over imaginary democrats posi…

Conservatives focus on the points that splinters the liberals, and vice versa the liberals try to focus on points that splinters the conservatives. Liberals are very split on the trans issue, so it makes sense to focus on that. It was a bad move to put themselves in such a position that they can't defend when conservatives attacks it, that was moving too fast and therefore we ended up with a conservative government.…

> Conservatives focus on the points that splinters the liberals, and vice versa the liberals try to focus on points that splinters the conservatives. Liberals are very split on the trans issue, so it makes sense to focus on that.

Not true. Conservatives are creating this point, because it makes their base afraid and more radical. It has nothing to do with what liberals do or don't do. It is not about splintering liberals, it is about creating a weak enemy so you can beat him. Liberals have two choices: join trans hate and gain no votes or do not join trans hate.

> it was conservative that is to blame since they used this vulnerability

I think conservatives are to blame, because they picked someone weak to bully him and use as political cudgel. Also because they lie.

> liberals fault for doing things that is unpopular

Except that it did not happened. There was no comparable democratic pro-trans campaign. You are just doing that funny thing where if there is a single person opposed to conservative agenda, then conservatives are absolved of everything.

> we ended up with a conservative government.

Conservative movement becoming fascists personality cult is the issue. In an alternative universe, there could have been pro-democratic lawful conservative government. Conservative did not had to imply what it does today. And conservative movement turning into what it is now is fully fault of conservatives.