Hacker News Reader

Comment by chiefalchemist | Hacker News Reader

This isn't meant to be troll-y / snark-y, but if the USA factored out subsidies for Big Oil, and then added in the military costs associated with keeping the oil flowing, that would make solar look much more attractive.

View on HN

Even if we become energy independent from ME oil, which we’re net independent I think, (and about 90% on the crude side?) then we still have Japan, Europe and many parts in Asia which need uninterrupted oil supplies from the ME.

Perhaps. I'm only suggesting the total cost of oil be considered, presuming we're doing the same for solar.

p.s. As it contributes to/drives climate change, we might as well include storm damage and such with the cost of oil.

It's easy to ignore. Just as easy as 2003 when the American empire secured the ME oil unilaterally from Iraq by ousting Saddam while all other powers made no retaliation for the move other than strong condemnation which is really the same thing. No one liked it, but no one was really going to lift a finger to prevent it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Off...

Even that purported rationale for the second invasion of Iraq was false. “We” secured that Iraqi oil to export it mostly to Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq

It doesn't matter where it goes per se, as much as who controls it. Oil (read: the price of) is a weapon. Look what the crash (of the price of crude) did to Venezuela. If energy (read: oil) is essential to your economy then you can't let someone else yo-yo the price at will.

And thus, the first foreign country for POTUS DJT to visit was Saudi Arabia.

The oil was already flowing in 2003.

1991 was fought over the oil, 2003 was fought over ideology and wishful thinking.

By ideology do you mean daddy issues?

I think he’s referring to some who to this day believe in “nation building” and imposing democracy where it’s not ready to take root. Ostensibly this democracy would spread and we’d have fewer adversaries as more regimes aligned with internationalism and globalism.

Yup - specifically, the neoconservative philosophy that said that now that the USSR was gone, the US had the power and hence the responsibility to reshape world political power structures in whatever way it thought was right.

This isn't only sunk cost, it's attributed to different budgets. You would struggle to get many people to accept the subsidy exists. Likewise in car manufacture, or aircraft, or almost any established industry with a large cost/price distinction and externalities unmet.

All gas and oil has fugitive C02 issues. Look what happened with that gas storage well in California which had months long leaks. Were the owners required to offset the extra CO2? Or the gulf oil leaks which have been continuously flowing since the sixties? Or tar sands?

Nobody budgets the remediation cost into the unit cost of the energy.

Sunk cost shouldn't be a factor at all. It is already spent, it shouldn't affect future investment decisions, see the 'sunk cost fallacy'.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallac...

This quip is a common trope that has several problems with it and is years out of date. Please stop using it.

First, oil-based energy doesn't compete with solar to a large extent. That will change as EVs get more popular, but outside of islands like Hawaii, oil isn't used much for electricity generation (where solar competes).

Second, solar is already attractive for most new generation scenarios in many locations, including dispactchable situations where you also need storage. It's getting so cheap that it's starting to compete with existing generation.

http://ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-solar-plus-storage-is-undermining...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com