Live data from Hacker News

Europe's fires are just the start

economist.com

61–70 of 365 posts

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#61
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as major countries like Germany are keeping their ban on nuclear power, climate change cannot be that urgent.

This gets repeated again and again, but wouldn't the money required to build/maintain nuclear plants be much better invested in building out renewables and battery storage? They already produce power much cheaper, and cost efficiency keeps increasing. Meanwhile power from nuclear plants are very expensive, comparatively. So why should we invest in nuclear energy? I have the impression a lot of the debate about nuclea…

> This gets repeated again and again, but wouldn't the money required to build/maintain nuclear plants be much better invested in building out renewables and battery storage? They already produce power much cheaper, and cost efficiency keeps increasing

Our power demands are increasing faster than we can build out renewables and storage.

Despite how much investment we are making into solar, wind, batteries, we're still burning more carbon year over year to make up for the demand for energy. We need a source of energy that can actually replace the base load carbon, not just augment it like renewables are. Nuclear is the most likely source to use for that purpose.

Edit: if we're being honest, we probably should have built out nuclear 20, 30, 40 years ago but we didn't. The expense now is kind of the cost of our poor policy decisions in decades past. We can continue to make poor decisions or we can learn our lesson and eat the cost now to fix those mistakes. I think failing to invest and shift to nuclear now would be yet another instance of passing the buck to the future generations, with even more interest

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as major countries like Germany are keeping their ban on nuclear power Frankly, it doesn't matter what Germany or other European nations do - their carbon footprint has dramatically decreased. The issue is everyone else [0]. China (12 GT), the US (5 GT), and India (3 GT) alone represent over half of all global carbon emissions. The EU and UK's combined carbon emissions are half of Asia (excluding China and…

Your link shows the US also decreased their carbon footprint, and a big part of the rest of the world stays kinda stable.

India and most of ASEAN (Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc) are expected to see GDP grow rates in the 6-8% range for the next decade.

Their carbon footprint is only going to increase as a result.

India [0], Vietnam [1], and others have all doubled down on coal for energy security reasons.

[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-05/india-mul...

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vietnam-looks-more-c...

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I would agree that it is regrettable Germany sunset their nuclear early when they should've extended the runtime for another 5-10 years to avoid excess carbon emissions since shutdown, but clean energy has already surpassed coal in Germany and they will likely hit net zero in the next decade at current deployment rates of renewables and batteries. [My note: The US states of Illinois and California got this righ…

You realize that "green energy" in EU is dependent on gas and/or coal? When there's no wind or sun, we will gladly burn gas or coal, and call it green energy. Nuclear doesn't have this requirement. It's truly zero carbon. Unless you can show me plans to fill this gap with batteries on a national scale, renewables < nuclear

Enough sunlight falls on the Earth in 30 minutes to power humanity for a year. We have solved fusion at a distance with solar and batteries. We're arguing speed and cost of deployment for the collection and storage system. The technology drops in cost rapidly, it lasts for decades with no moving parts and minimal maintenance. It can be trivially recycled today with no further technology advancements needed. It fails gracefully.

Yes, some fossil fuels will be burned to fill energy consumption gaps until we have fully replaced all fossil generation with that produced from the sun. Again, remember the fact that every year we are adding ~1TW of solar that can account for energy consumption growth and push out fossil generation. We won't know until we look back over time, but we are very likely at peak fossil fuel consumption globally. New generation will be clean tech simply out of economics, and old fossil generation will be replaced eventually with clean tech, because it cannot last forever.

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/solar-panel-prices-... (solar panel prices have fallen by around 20% every time global capacity doubled)

https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline (lithium-ion battery prices fell by 19% every time global cumulative production doubled)

Ember Energ: Solar electricity every hour of every day is here and it changes everything - https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e... - June 21st, 2025

The Economist: The exponential growth of solar power will change the world - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40746617 - June 2024 (66 comments)

> To call solar power’s rise exponential is not hyperbole, but a statement of fact. Installed solar capacity doubles roughly every three years, and so grows ten-fold each decade. Such sustained growth is seldom seen in anything that matters. That makes it hard for people to get their heads round what is going on. When it was a tenth of its current size ten years ago, solar power was still seen as marginal even by experts who knew how fast it had grown. The next ten-fold increase will be equivalent to multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight in less than the time it typically takes to build just a single one of them.

> Solar cells will in all likelihood be the single biggest source of electrical power on the planet by the mid 2030s. By the 2040s they may be the largest source not just of electricity but of all energy. On current trends, the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today. This will not stop climate change, but could slow it a lot faster. Much of the world—including Africa, where 600m people still cannot light their homes—will begin to feel energy-rich. That feeling will be a new and transformational one for humankind.

> To grasp that this is not some environmentalist fever dream, consider solar economics. As the cumulative production of a manufactured good increases, costs go down. As costs go down, demand goes up. As demand goes up, production increases—and costs go down further. This cannot go on for ever; production, demand or both always become constrained. In earlier energy transitions—from wood to coal, coal to oil or oil to gas—the efficiency of extraction grew, but it was eventually offset by the cost of finding ever more fuel.

(think in systems)

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#65
post #7
post #4

There is no "new normal", we are in a slope. As long as we emit CO2, the climate will get worse. Year after year. With effects like fires accelerating it, or the loss of the Amazon (it's pretty much lost already, isn't it?) that will just result in more CO2 being released. We don't have to adapt to the situation as it is now , because it is pretty much the best scenario. We have to adapt to the fact that it will get…

As long as major countries like Germany are keeping their ban on nuclear power, climate change cannot be that urgent.

We've ran out of time. Even if political will shifted immediately, getting new nuclear plants on the grid is going to take a decade or more.

In the meantime batteries + solar or wind can be built quickly and hooked up pretty much anywhere.

Even if we had nuclear fusion, solar+batteries could still win on cost and time to deploy!

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#66
People are truly having a climate change discussion fatigue. They hear all the time from politicians, celebrities, influencers, etc. that they should stop eating meat, should not drive non-electric vehicles, should not use AC, reduce consumption, and all other bullshit while the people preaching those have started wars that emit billions of tons of carbon, travel on their private planes to climate change summits, taking their private plane to ski in Aspen and throw lavish parties to celebrate birthdays, etc.

It's basically normal people should sacrifice their standards of livings and pay taxes to reduce carbon emission while the same rules doesn't apply for the other class of the society. Most people are living pay check to pay check and out of all the worries in their minds, climate change is the last thing they can afford to worry about.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#67
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that the people in charge do nothing and don't understand the problem. However, the people in charge (e.g. in France) are elected by the people, and therefore represent it. Do you think that the far-right will care more about the climate crisis? The French people is likely to elect them next year. It's too easy to vote for people who don't give a shit about the climate crisis, and then blame them. > either way…

> Do you think that the far-right will care more about the climate crisis? Far right, far left, far center, it's all the same: money, power, money, power, stay in the EU, free market, money, power.

People could vote for candidates who care. They just don't.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some ways I wonder if these timescales are "beyond comprehension" for most people. You can tell people the temperature will go up in 20 years, but you can't make them feel what it will be like. In the same way you can tell a 10 year old what it's like to be age 35 but they don't get it, and I've heard what it's like to be age 80 but I don't really know and won't for some time.

Arguably it's rational (though selfish) to think like this. Life is short, there's no point freezing and living off leaves for the next few decades when you'll be old in the blink of an eye anyway

Setting aside the fact that I want to leave things in a good place for my kids, neighbors' kids, nieces, nephews and all their friends...

Setting aside the fact that even if I was so selfish to care about my personal legacy, I'd want the world around long enough to learn about it...

there's no point freezing and living off leaves for the next few decades

I don't think the ask here is so unreasonable. It's disingenuous to frame it this way.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#70
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as major countries like Germany are keeping their ban on nuclear power, climate change cannot be that urgent.

This gets repeated again and again, but wouldn't the money required to build/maintain nuclear plants be much better invested in building out renewables and battery storage? They already produce power much cheaper, and cost efficiency keeps increasing. Meanwhile power from nuclear plants are very expensive, comparatively. So why should we invest in nuclear energy? I have the impression a lot of the debate about nuclea…

This gets repeated again and again. They are not in conflict with each other - both need to be done in tandem. It is not a this or that strategy - it is an all of the above strategy.

Nuclear is critical for long term generating power. Batteries and solar are good not able to maintain the same level of power quality and duration though are definitely incredibly important.

Post reply on HN