Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheSpiceIsLife | Hacker News Reader

You mean we make end-users pay for it.

But your wider point stands: behavioural change via financial incentives.

In practice, both producers and consumers will pay, because demand for fossil fuels has some elasticity: higher prices mean lower sales. This yields an equilibrium at which consumers pay somewhat more, but also buy somewhat less, and producers eat some of the cost in terms of lower profits and lower value of their companies.

Yep. Until it costs $4000 a month to heat your home people will not stop doing it.

There are many good ways of keeping homes warm without fossil fuels.

The projected cost of ccs is much less than $4000/mo even for a oil heated home though.

Since these [0] work in Scandinavia heating will only ever be a problem you choose to have.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

Your article says those houses still need heating, just less than typical.

Rather little, and with district heating it's a non-issue. You can make it a "plus house", producing more energy than what it consumes using solar panels.

My point rather was that living in a really old badly insulated house or a place with horrendous building standards is a choice, and that has to cost something and not be what we aim for when alternatives are easily possible and has been for decades.

Yup. Nuclear. It works for France.

But now they closed down Fessenheim so more coal would be burned. Thank you Greens, thank you Hollande!

https://www.sustainability-times.com/expert/a-safe-and-profi...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com